Casino Royale 9. Let's get this out of the way right up front. Daniel Craig makes a decent Bond. Unreservedly better than some Bonds from the past. [*coughDALTONcough*] That said, there was almost no scene in this movie that I wouldn't have rather seen Pierce Brosnan in. Yes, Craig is younger and is reminiscient of early Connery Bond, but he's just different enough to prevent him from settling into the image of Bond that resides in my head. If we're determined to stick with Craig for future Bond films (which in itself could be problematic, as I believe all Flemming novels have been brought to the screen now), I'd like to see the hair darkened slightly and a little more cultured sophistication forced on the character. This is James Bond after all, not some street thug.

There's a lot of things in this movie that I liked, but a number of decisions were made that kept this from being a personal blockbuster. I was excited to hear that this was going to be kind of a prequel... a "how James became Bond" kind of movie. But I think the decision to give the film a contemporary setting was disastrous. There was no reason ...none... that this film couldn't have been set in cold war-60s before the time of the first Connery Bonds. It would have fit seamlessly into the mythology and I think would have helped legitimize Craig as Bond. Similarly, while I have nothing against Judi Dench, the "M" of the 00's-Bond has no business playing the "M" of a 60's-Bond. Nothing in this movie couldn't have been retro-fitted to the 60's, and the few bits of technology that were necessary in this film would seem hi-tech (but not unbelievable) in a 60's setting. These choices made the movie feel like a fantasy to me, not part of a chronology. And, shallow and petty though it may be, I miss the "frolicking naked chicks" cavorting through the opening credits. ...another unnecessary change from what makes a Bond movie a Bond movie.

Core gripes aside, this is an enjoyable movie, with good action and a more-complex-than-the-usual-Bond storyline. While Bond films of recent years threw buckets of money at their effects people to created huge spectacles, in this movie it was surgically employed to create things that were instead spectacular. See the difference? You do in the movie. In the climactic scene (or rather, the 2nd climactic scene... a slight writing gaff) they actually destroy a real building in Venice in dramatic fashion. (Compare this to giant space lasers destroying hotels made of ice while an invisible BMW zips up and down its stairs, and I think you'll see what I mean.) This movie also contains the single most fantastic foot chase scene you will ever, ever see. Ever! During the opening credits, I saw some guy credited as "foot chase stuntman" or something like that. I thought briefly, "what the hell is this guy getting mentioned in the opening credits for?" Then I saw the chase scene in question. Holy shit. I've never seen anyone move like this. Not only does this guy deserve an opening credit, he'd better see a fucking Academy Award in February.

Almost out of the theaters now, find it if you can. It'll be a much better experience if it's 20 feet tall.  ¶ 12:05 PM