Why did anyone expect it to be good?

Rating: 3/10 (15 November 2008)

Honestly, anyone expecting this to be a true Bond film or even a good film hasn't been paying attention.
The main talent is just not right for this franchise.
Director: Forster, with no experience in this type of film, in this genre, with very grim material to his name. He is NOT the right man to direct this franchise. Writer: Paul Haggis, who has an equally grim view of humanity. A scientologist with the typical view that mankind is unredeemable, that no "unsaved" person is worth anything, it permeates all his recent work. Writer: Purvis, Wade, just not very good writers. Craig: no charm. Bond has charm. Craig is not bond.
I was hoping that Casino Royale was a precursor to the right Bond. The end of the film seemed to introduce the Bond we knew in some of the films, like the early Connery and early Moore films where he wasn't so smarmy.
But I guess not, as they just took this into the wrong place. I don't like the Bourne movies because they stray from the books and are frenetic, and Bond is now even MORE frenetic and strays MORE from the concept.
Bond is supposed to be part spy, part action hero, part Columbo, part Don Juan. The powers that be are completely neglecting the second two parts of his character. Like Columbo, Bond always put himself into the belly of the beast and annoyed the crap out of his opponent, finally defeating him with by turning his own mechanisms against him. This new bond doesn't do that. And Bond also got himself into trouble by having an uncontrollable libido. This Bond doesn't do that, either.
Without those last two parts, the spy/action hero becomes generic. Like Bourne, or any other number of forgettable characters. He has not likability, no soul.
Oh well. This movie will make a lot of money, but it's just not James Bond anymore...