Casino Royale
"Without a question the best Bond movie, unless one runs with the only real problem I had with it, namely that it's a Bond movie in name alone. It's so far removed from the set-in-stone camp template that it might as well be "The Bourne Identity." In fact, I think it basically is, a complement to both films. Still, I enjoyed it very much, even though as far as I can figure it has no discernable plot.
I love the way they wrote this Bond as the perfect mix of brains and brawn to the extent that he knows when to value the latter over the former. He's the type of guy who runs through walls if it gets him where he needs to be faster, esp. since he's sharp enough to quickly realize it's the type of wall you can run through. He's buff, alright, too, but I had no problem with that. For one thing, would we expect otherwise from a lethal killing machine? And also, if Daniel Craig can look like that, even as an actor with a personal trainer, then why not a spy who's in kill mode 24-7? It's five million times better than Paunchy Moore pretending he's a lethal killing machine to have a guy who looks the part.
Frankly, I prefer my action films sans plot. In this case, literally. It's not a bad plot, or a plot full of holes, or a lazy plot. There is no plot. Zero. I admire the moxie. The failure of 100% of the past Bond films is the lip service they give to plot, as if the pretense of plot isn't what always kills them in the end. This Bond is 100% character, 0% plot, which as a reboot strategy is pretty sound. Next time out it'll have a plot and therefore the sequel will let the reboot down.
In other words, who cares what Bond does? It's *why* he does it. Now, the “Bourne” movies are great because he doesn't know why he does it. Craig's Bond recognizes that he does it because he's a natural born cold-blooded killer suited to nothing else. Something kind of scary about that.”