Didnt like the look of Daniel Craig as James Bond , so i didnt rush to see it. H!

Didnt like the look of Daniel Craig as James Bond , so i didnt rush to see it. He is NOT a Bond?

Decided to rent the dvd and see what it was like.I think the movie itself was different from any bond film in the past and i just dont think its the same, they have changed it beyond recognition. Daniel Craig should NEVER have been James Bond. I hope he doesnt do another and that they return the film to as it should be.

If it had just been a stand alone action/spy movie with him starring in it, fine, no problem but it just didnt work in my opinion. What do you think?

5 days ago
Wether it is closer to the book than any other bond movie is beside the point. There was a bond formula that worked and whatever ingredients that were in past bond movies, they took it away, change isnt always better i think. I have liked most of the bonds, Sean Connery, Roger Moore & Pierce Brosnon, even George Lazenby(or something like that). The only other one i didnt like was Timothy Dalton but at least the movie was still bond.

5 days ago
Can i just say, i never mentioned Daniel Craigs hair colour. It was him generally that i think was wrong for the part.

5 days ago
schenzy ...samvines said it in a way i couldnt. There is your answer!!!

First off, Casino Royale was an excellent thriller. And Daniel Craig was good in the role he played in the film.

BUT...

...was it James Bond? NO.

I agree that they changed the formula so much that it could have been any other action film. It is only the character James Bond by name only. True, it is close to Ian Fleming's character in the book, but we don't pay money to see that character, only the one we saw over the past 40 years on screen.

They wanted to grit it up like Jason Bourne, but we are left with a character that isn't Bond anymore, only generic Action Guy.