Why did they have to make it a reboot?
For that reason, I don't really consider the Craig movies to be Bond movies.
shareIt wasn't a bad idea at the time, but all these years later we still haven't seen a real Bond movie with Daniel Craig. I don't know what the hell these movies are, but they are certainly not anything that resembles a Bond film.
This one in particular is so beloved, and I used to really like it too, but I'm getting the point where I would lean towards putting this one in the 'bad' column. I like it less every single time I watch it.
The year before, Batman Begins came out and that probably influenced doing a Bond reboot
shareThey were developing Casino Royale (adapting the book) in 2004 (pre Batman Begins), but it was with Brosnan still attached, so they probably hadn't decided to reboot yet.
They announced Craig would be Bond in October of 2005, so that's a pretty good theory, that they decided to go full reboot only after Batman Begins did gangbusters at the box office.
Yeah, I was a big fan of the reboot at the time as well. But who knew they would just keep rebooting and never get to actually making Bond movies again. This movie doesn't hold up for me. This film is a real bore, there's some logic holes, and the overly emotional bits just don't resonate in any believable fashion. The action scenes are over the top and go on far too long. I mean, the spectacle of them is really something. Blew my mind in the theater. But all these years later, it's much more akin to something from a Fast n Furious film. It is what it is. I'll always find Craig's era fascinating as the deconstruction of the Bond mythos it is, and the reflection of changing times upon a long established franchise. But good Bond films these are not. As for this film in particular, I probably would be more forgiving toward it were it not followed up by sequels banging the same drum. I still assert that Quantum is the most Bond like of his tenure so for.
share