In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing; "Thunderball" came close, but that was because Fleming developed the story on commission for the film. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had the book's plot pretty down pat, and was made in a kind of 'grand adventure' style, but of course it suffered from the choice of Lazenby - a professional model, not an actor - as Bond. "The Living Daylights" showed the producers' interest in returning to the roots, but Dalton was uncomfortable playing Bond, and uncomfortable with the wisecracks which had become part of the character's schtick - and which were really badly written for the Dalton films. "Goldeneye" was admirable attempt to update the Fleming milieu for the end of the Cold War, but left the character himself as yet without an 'updated' definition.

The decision to make a 21st Century version of Fleming's first Bond novel - and, beyond the update, to remain true to the novel, sans comic patter, sans sci-fi techno-schtick, sans major rewrite of the basic plot - promised to present Bond fans of all ages with a direct challenge. Do we want the hard-boiled spy Fleming first envisioned - patterned after Chandler's Philip Marlowe and W. Somerset Maughm's Ashenden ("or: The British Agent")? Or would we really rather have the suave stand-up comedian and Playboy magazine contributor introduced by Broccoli, Maibaum, Young, and company, in the second Connery film, "From Russia With Love"?

Well, the votes are still being tallied on that.

As someone who came to Bond reading "Goldfinger" at the tender age of twelve (the phrase "round, firm, pointed breasts" has been an inspiration to me since),the closer the films came to the sense of the novels, the happier I was.

So of course, this version of Bond is a joyous surprise for me - my youthful daydreams have been vindicated and at last fully satisfied. There are indeed elements added to the plot, but they are completely congruent with it. There is the use of current technology, but no techno-schtick - i.e., no Q. and no "gadgets". There are the luscious Bond babes (2 - the minimum Bond requirement),but there is no attempt to reduce them to photogenic sex-toys.

Fleming's plot actually requires the film's addition of some heavy action sequences (all done very snappy, with a brutally realistic edge),because the novel is very claustrophobic; the original TV version of the story (1955, with Barry Nelson as 'Jimmy Bond'),only used three indoor sets, because it could - except for the car chase and an attempted bombing at an outdoor café, Fleming's novel took place almost entirely within Bond's hotel suite and the gaming room. The film's opening this novel out to the world is actually quite welcome, and does not affect the central plot or its theme.

The character of Bond presented in this film may disappoint followers of the original films, but the news is, this is FLEMING's Bond - an orphan uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.

The other problem some general viewers may have is the level of violence in the film; having determined to film the novel realistically, director Martin Campbell has decided to ditch the 'B-movie' violence of most of the earlier films, and present us the violence with a hard 'British neo-noir' edge to it. Given the romantic plot twist toward the end, this would be a perfect date movie - except that the violence left some of the female viewers in the theater I attended clearly unsettled. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is part of the gestalt of the film's experience.

Cambell's direction is very good; the writing is crisp; production values are very high; the photography is stunning. Some of the stunt work is truly remarkable, worthy competition for Jackie Chan. The acting is rock-solid and believable for these characters. There is plenty of muscle for the action-film fan, and some real brains for the more general viewer to ponder later.

This film is best viewed with minimal reliance on knowledge of the previous series. In fact, it functions perfectly well as a 'one-off', a film without a series.

But of course, the ending invites a sequel. In Godzilla terms, Connery and Moore having given us the 'showa' Bond, Dalton and Brosnan the "Heisei" Bond, we now have the "Millenium" series James Bond - not a prequel nor even a 'reboot', but, really, an entirely new series about the same character. It is probably too much to hope for, but maybe they can make the sequels just as good as this.

As a genre film it never quite lifts above its genre; so normally I would only give it "nine stars" as a film.

However, as a film within its genre, it is top-of-the-line - so it gets a ten.

For many years, I have longed to see a James Bond series actually based on the books. While some of the Bond films have been a lot of fun, most have practically nothing to do with the great Ian Fleming novels. Sadly, in a few cases (such as YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE),about the only similarity between the books and the movies were the titles!

In fact, the original CASINO ROYALE was a horrid film in practically every way except for the music. While some of the characters were retained, the movie was an abysmal mess--a very high budget and confusing mess. It was purported to be a comedy, though practically none of the film was funny and like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, the plot was impossible to follow and bore no similarity to the book. Fans of Ian Fleming usually twitch with disgust at even hearing the title of this god-awful film--thank goodness someone FINALLY wanted to do the Fleming novel some justice!

In the books, Bond was a bourbon drinking, chain-smoking assassin. CASINO ROYALE was the first book and Bond was his most human in it. In the book, Bond struggled with guilt over the many people he'd killed--and they were NOT killed in crazy and exotic ways like they were in most of the movies. Most were either shot or killed with his bare hands. Bond was, above all else, a killer--not quite as sexy or sophisticated as he was in the films. While Craig isn't quite the same as Fleming's Bond (he's missing the scar down his cheek),he's much closer to the novels than any prior Bond incarnation. I miss that Bond and am glad that, in part, the new CASINO ROYALE finally features much of this cold-blooded and flawed character.

Now I do understand that EON Productions couldn't repeat the novel completely--heck, it was set in the early 1950s and many allowances needed to be made for current events. And as far as the updates went, they generally were in the same spirit as the original movie and the cat and mouse game between Le Chiffre and Bond is essentially that of the novel.

All this does NOT mean that the movie will only appeal to those who read the books. There are still many exciting chase scenes and stunts like you'd expect to see in a Bond film but fortunately Bond didn't seem so invincible. Daniel Craig's version of Bond could apparently do what the prior Bonds could do, but you'll notice throughout the film that he's cut and bruised--not exactly a man of steel. I loved this and it did tend to make the unrealness of the stunts seem a tad more believable. Plus, again, Fleming would be thrilled as several stories he wrote talked about the toll on Bond's body.

The film was well-constructed, stunt heavy but not enough to alienate purists like myself and intelligently written. About the only people who will strongly dislike this film are those who are looking for a reincarnation of Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Craig certainly doesn't look or act like either of these two guys. While I could easily imagine Connery's or Moore's characters sipping martinis while engaged in gay banter with their arch-enemies, Craig is more the type you'd expect to beat the enemies to death with his bare hands--like a REAL government assassin. Wow, do I like the change!

PS--The Aston Martin DBS V12 in this movie is a gorgeous car and it should be with a base price of $265,000. In the film, it is destroyed and I truly hope this was a model or something other than one of these great sports cars--it would be tragic if they really did in this car!

Don't get me wrong I really like James Bond, after seeing the superb From Russia With Love with Sean Connery(my personal favourite Bond),and I really wanted to see Casino Royale as it promised to be exhilarating and exciting. After seeing it for myself, I thought exhilarating yes in terms of visuals but it isn't quite exciting enough.

Starting off with the good things are that chiefly the cinematography, stunts, effects, editing and scenery are absolutely incredible. Also the sound is very impressive, the first action sequence was utterly mind blowing thanks to the visuals and the sound effects. The score by David Arnold is also good and authentic enough, it isn't John Barry, but it has some rousing themes. Mads Mikkelsen makes a brooding and intense Le Chiffre, while Eva Green is stunning and poised as the sexy Vesper Lynd and Judi Dench the brilliant actress she is is a suitably frustrated M.

However, there are some components I didn't like so much; I found that the pacing was very uneven here, after the first action sequence, there are some parts that are fairly pedestrian. Also I wasn't particularly particularly taken with the theme song, it was typical Bond, but it was also so-so. That said though, it is better than the one Madonna sang, what was that song again? Daniel Craig I had mixed feelings about, while he had the intensity behind his beautiful eyes, while he had the body and while he had the grit and athleticism, what he didn't quite have was the charisma. Some of the story is uneven as well, there are some nice, well-constructed parts but there were others that felt unnecessary and not quite so well thought out, the torture scene especially. In terms of dialogue, some of the exchanges between Bond and Vesper Lynd are delicious and seductive, but the ones with Le Chiffre weren't quite so good, some of it didn't have the spirit of Bond.

Overall, not the best Bond in my opinion, but it is not unwatchable or anything. 6/10 Bethany Cox