The end of james bond.... - Casino Royale Reviews

I watched the new Bond movie called, "Casino Royale" and do I have a lot to say about this film. First the good stuff.....(to soften up the blow) I admire the fact that the production was willing to take some chances in keeping the character fresh. Chances such as not giving Bond as much gadgets to use, showing a more human side of Bond and overall starting over with the character. I also liked some of the comedy that was implemented in some scenes. Now the bad stuff....(if you liked this movie ALOT do not read the next few paragraphs because I will rip it a new 'you know what'!) The production took one chance that may cost them dearly to the entire francise and that was casting a "new" James Bond. The actor Daniel Craig did not look like a James Bond. I believe this actor is in his late 30s...but to me he look like he was ready to turn 50 and was about to go bald. His hair was so short that I think he was in the progress of baldness. This guy did not fit the role. The production forced it in like a square piece trying to fit into a circle space. This guy looks more suitable to be villian. James Bond doesn't have to look incredible, but he has to display himself through his actions to be incredible. All the other actors from Connery to Bronsan had the role down and displayed it quite perfectly in their own style. Connery was a very original type of Bond, Lazenbary (he was in one Bond film called On Her Majesty's Secret Service aka OHMSS)was a suitable replacement, but since he one did one Bond movie you can't really judge him quite well, Roger Moore had a more comicial personality of Bond, Dalton portrayed a more novelistic sense of Bond...meaning he was almost like the character from the Bond novels and finally Bronsan who was a combination of Connery and Moore. Don't believe me? Refer back to the movies and you'll see that Bronsan has 50% Connery and 50% Moore. Now I understand that this is Craig's first Bond film and I admire him for doing his best...however let's get this straight right now, HE DID NOT FIT THE PART OF BOND! I see him more of a villian. He almost reminds me of agent 006 in the movie "Goldeneye". Don't believe me? Then watch that movie as well. If the production was going to replace Bronsan, they could've gotten somebody who actually fit the part. Craig looked too old to be a rookie agent. And they said they wanted a younger actor! Bronsan may be in his 50s but he still looks young enough to be in his late 30s. The way Craig portrayed Bond was a disappointment. The Bond he portrayed was a complete combination of wimpus-americanus/macho-kid. Without giving away the movie, he was a wimp during the serious relationship with the Bond Girl "Vesper". Towards the end of the movie really supports that notion of him being a WIMP (HINT: Watch him chase after Vesper). He was a macho-kid for trying to take unnecessary risks and for making poor judgement calls within the action. I understand that this particular Bond was suppose to be an agent who just started out. Realistically speaking the things that he did in the first 30minutes of the movie would get a real agent suspended without pay...or even FIRED! The producers I think said that they wanted a more "realistic Bond". Yeah right I'm gonna laugh at that statement after watching this film. Sean Connery was the most realistic Bond. So was Moore and so was Bronsan. However, Sean Connery stood out as THE realistic James Bond! Daniel Craig was more of a wimp/macho-kid. He was mostly a macho-kid because of his ego that just made him a stupid agent. The story of the movie I felt was awkward and unstable. For most of the movie Bond was more of a Rogue Agent. I read some of the original novel of Casino Royale and that's not what Bond was. James Bond in the novel followed orders and never took unnecessary risks. A character should only take risks only if it is necessary. Bond in the novel was NOT so much of a Rogue. Bond in the novel followed orders and only took "necessary risks". Now I haven't finished all of the novel, but I think the novel had a more richer character. All the movie did was take a fraction of the story, some original lines from the novel and the characters. The character James Bond I think they approached it all wrong. I understand James Bond is cold blooded, but if you watch the movie, how can he be so cold-blooded and also have high interest of love in a woman that he barely knows? Watch carefully at the relationship of Bond and Vesper and hopefully you'll understand exactly what I mean. This movie did not surpass Die Another Day because Casino Royale got NO appaluse. Die Another Day got an appaluse. What the movie could've done better was this: 1. Either keep Bronsan OR if you want a new actor so so badly get one that looks the part! This means an actor who has darker hair, actually looks younger, and has the ability to be 50% tough and 50% nice. I think all the actors before Craig had this. 2. Get rid of the current actress who plays M! Having her in the movie looked awkward since she came from the Bronsan era. 3. Do NOT reference 9/11 when introducing a character that is over 50 years old. That made the whole unity of time and space very awkward. It should've been a separate unity of time and space where there were other issues to be mentioned. 4. Start off Bond as being interview by M for the first time. It would've introduced both characters and it would've established the original professional relationship between the two. Either as a flashback or as a scene of itself. 5. Every single person who has responsible for this film should think LONG and hard about what they could've done better. I'm not sure if it was the writers who destroyed Bond or the Producers...or BOTH! Who ever created this version of Bond, it was almost like some random film studio took the name JAMES BOND and ripped it off! Hell I think I could've rip off the character a lot better than what they did...then again I should've even talk since I'm NOT a professional filmmaker, so nevermind lol. Overall, within the first 30minutes of this film I got that gut feeling that this may be setting up THE END of the JAMES BOND movie series. It was ridiculous of them to fire Bronsan, after all didn't he (besides Roger Moore) save the Bond series? He saved it when he was in the movie "Goldeneye" back in 1995. The James Bond movie series has been one of the most LONGEST movies series in film history! So every single person involved with all films should be proud for making history. The good and the bad. Daniel Craig you tried your best and I respect that, however, I think you'll have to find another job after the series ends. The Producers...collect your paychecks and find a new job.