ok and this be the 21st century . so and maybe it time for even the bond genre to get a tune up for new generation audience . at least that what the producer think . but the new bond be as disappointing a new coke . nothing beat the original . for starter and the producer seem to make sure to keep everything out of the screenplay for casino royale that make the bond series unique and exciting and engaging and fun . the so call bond formula balance sadism with sensuality and and ironic humor . sadly miss from this film too be the other bond staple represent gadget and buxom blond and and wonderful little quip and double entendres . this all give the bond series a comic book adventure cadence and buoyancy . it do not take itself too seriously . but casino royale jettisons all this and just keep slog along with relentless action scene and brutality and banality and not much else . yes and the action scene be astutely choreograph and film and edit . but they be need to shore up a saggy and drag out and somewhat convolute plot . the opening immediately warn you that this be not classic bond . it set the film heavy tone . bond brutally assassinate two criminal and one by drown in a lavatory sink and in black and white film noir and no less . by contrast in the goldfinger ( 1964 ) prequel and bond blow up a narcotic operation and change into a tux and romance a cabaret dancer and and easily dispenses with an assassin and all the before the opening credit . the open credit of casino royale alone be another warning . there be not one stylize silhouette of a female model and which be the glamour signature in almost all bond film . instead and we just have silhouette of guy shoot each other and bleed in technicolor across the screen . yuck . what horribly pretentious be that the whole film try to chronicle the apprentice bond transition into a 007 assassin . but it a contrive and unconvincing a anakin skywalker metamorphosis into darth vader . and and in the end it even sappier than the brief marriage of george lanzenby bond to dianna rigg in the 1969 on her majesty secret service . frankly and i be not bond psychologist and so i really do not care to delve into life little trauma that shape 007. i be content with accept that he just grow up that way . daniel craig be terribly miscast a bond . he a blue collar bond . he look self conscious in a tuxedo . he too hard chisel in appearance for the debonair bond a invent by ian flemming . craig could have just a easily be cast a one of the villain in the film . his strident and driven demeanor remind me a little bit of donovan grant and the spectre assassin play by robert shaw in the 1963 from russia with love . craig be humorless and and too much on the edge for my taste . actually and his squinty eye and big upper torso and and gait reminds me a little of popeye the sailor . like the timothy dalton bond and he have no sense of playfulness either . his romantic side seem force in the film few dull and gratuitous lovemaking scene . and and the woman cast to play opposite him in this film can barely gain admission into the sorority of bond babe . equally lackluster be mads mikkelsen portrayal of high roller le chiffre . he doesn not fit into the shoe of previous legendary bond villain such a goldfinger and largo and and blofeld . frankly and mikkelsen be just plain creepy and but not scary . a the top bad guy he seem to be on valium most of the time . the silly torture scene at the end be also out of character for him . mikkelsen doesn not have any of the bully and bluster and swagger of the classic bond villain . please give me just one script line like goldfinger represent i expect you to die mr. bond . ho hum . all of this make for just another forgetful spy movie with lot of fist and blood and gut and nothing more . it wrap itself in the james bond mystique which will guarantee a good box office but pay no homage to the genre . it too bad the creator felt they hand to change such a celebrated formula that have sustain the popularity of bond series for nearly four decade .