Disappointing film is more revisionist/re-imagining than simply a grittier restart...

Rating: Null/10 (19 November 2006)

At one point Ian Fleming thought the greatest of 007's Sean Connery might not even be fit for the role, as he may not be "refined enough"... After seeing the camera tests a few times, he did become a believer and filming progressed. The rest was, as they say - history.
I had high hopes for this new 007 film (which I anticipated greatly), and I must say after finally seeing this film Daniel Craig just doesn't fit. I watched, and this film unraveled itself as more of a "pc" re-imagining bit than simply a grittier Bond series restart "as advertised".
To anyone who's actually read Ian Flemings novels (yes, they are indeed a tad darker), Bond nonetheless is still a smooth, sexy, and sophisticated ladies gent who prefers his martini's "shaken, not stirred". Craig felt forced... at times he even walked so stiff (like he had just finished up with his catwalk instructor and proceeded immediately to set) it seemed he was pretending so hard to be someone/something he wasn't. For a proper Bond casting it should all come off so natural.
I don't know, Craig just didn't work, and neither did the revisionism writing/direction despite some decent action sequences. Ian Fleming himself had an official artists rendering ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleming007impression.jpg ) ordered up as to what he thought the Bond he created should look like - why stray from that vision? The films just needed to go die-hard to the source material and move away from the campy Hollywood direction to which they had digressed...