Casino Royale: James Bond for Real?

This latest movie is different from James Bond films of the recent past. Much has been written about it, so I won't do the comparison.

But there were some scenes where the director and producer were certainly trying to tell the audience something. Like when James Bond tells M that double O's have short life expectancies anyway so she doesn't have to live long with her mistake (when she expressed that she may have promoted him to double O status too soon) -- obviously a double-entendre about Daniel Craig's casting as 007.

Daniel Craig seemed like he was still auditioning for his role (in a sense he is). Clearly there is a lot of effort to win the audience over, as in the focus on his physicality, the near-death scene, the beating up while naked, the losing of his (only?) love, making him feel pain and his face scarred.

Overall it succeeds. I don't agree with Time magazine's assessment that it's a movie with lots of body but no soul. On the contrary the romantic scenes were a little overdrawn (I almost thought I was in a Keanu Reeves-Sandra Bullock movie). In spite of (or because of?) it, the movie is doing well at the box office.

I find this character portrayal of James Bond a good thing, sort of harks back to the Sean Connery era. Departs from the recent formula. When the gadgets are renderred obsolete with time, it would be character building and the storyline that will tell whether this James Bond movie is a classic or a dated forgettable one.

I think this James Bond is for real.

It is always a test when the James Bond actor is changed, but it was a smart move to to pull it off with the diamond in the rough character movie -- "how Bond came to be" allows some latitude. I think the real challenge is how to pull off the next one, when the fully developed Bond is expected to emerge. Will it go back to old formula?