Room to improve, time to be patient

Rating: 6/10 (25 November 2006)

As the trailers indicate, "Casino Royale" is sort of a prequel to the other films, but takes place in today's world. Fair enough. There are so many incongruities and continuity errors among the films that if you try to take any sort of linear approach to the movies as an ongoing story you'll drive yourself quite mad. The fans just ignore them. After all, if Felix Lighter can toggle back and forth between races from movie to movie, we can accept that this is sort of a fresh start with a familiar character without it necessarily being negative for the franchise.
This is the approach I took to the film. The character is familiar, but not exactly what we're used to. He is closer to the Connery portrayal as a "blunt instrument" for MI-6, but he is more raw and I think the key here is that many things that are likely being seen as negatives by many can be explained by the fact that the movie IS a sort of prequel. He doesn't speak that much. He doesn't have the groan-inducing, corny quips. He doesn't spend time lunching with his target. Those are more the marks of a polished James Bond who, as of this movie, doesn't exist yet. He gets his 00 status at the very beginning of the film. I choose to see the character differences as a Bond at the early stage of his evolution, rather than decrying them as flaws in the performance.
That being said, there are still things in this film that are departures from the norm. Bond seems to rely more on the team concept at MI-6, rather than doing all the legwork until an entire Naval fleet makes its timely appearance at the end to clean things up. This sort of runs counter to him being the headstrong, ego-driven character. There were almost no gadgets to speak of, so no obligatory "now listen up, 007" gadget-introduction scene. It was a little more action hero, and less smooth operator, and while I think it's fine that the character is not as polished (see above), it seemed like they had similar scenes that you get from previous films, but it didn't seem like there was a great deal of thought put into how to put those scenes together, or how to transition from one to another, especially the closer to the end of the film you get. It made things seem choppy or tacked-on at times.
I think that in the next few films the Bond character will evolve more into what Connery gave us, but I would probably find a new director who understands the franchise a bit more. Pretty much any director could have pulled off what was shot in this film.
Overall, I encourage viewers to take this film on its own merits, rather than comparing it too much with earlier incarnations. That being said, it's better than Timothy Daulton, but will never be better than Connery. I think there is a good chance of being better than Moore, though, and maybe even the last Brosnan one. At the very least, if you are a Bond fan, you will be entertained, and any 2+ hour movie gives you more for your money.