54 replies to this topic

[zencat]

My review up on my website:

http://web.mac.com/z...5182BD90EE.html

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

This movie shook me up (no, I’m not going to make a “shaken not stirred” joke). I really don’t know how to write a proper review, so I will just jump right into what, for me, were the pros and cons of Casino Royale.

PROS

Daniel Craig IS James Bond:
I LOVED him! I couldn't take my eyes off him. I wanted more, more, more! My private fear going in was, while I knew DC was a great actor, was he a leading man? Could he carry a movie? The answer is YES. I've been saying Craig is a British Steve McQueen. Not so. He's better than Steve McQueen. His ability to communicate pain, both physical and mental, is astounding. He deserves all the praise he’s getting. Craig really is one of the best Bonds, and if the quality of the movies stay high, he could easily become the greatest. He’s also now a true Movie Star. His casting was pure genius.

Eva Green IS Vesper Lynd:
I fell in love last night – and then I watched her die...horribly. Eva Green’s Vesper wrecked me! She was beautiful and spooky and sexy and tragic. She is the female animal that I will always love and never understand. Watching her and Daniel play against each other…my god!…every scene between them was sweet, sad, funny, tense…and when she finally offered herself to him (offered herself, he did not take her), it was one of the sexiest moments in cinema. And, yes, when she killed herself, I felt a wave of emotion and, had I let myself, I could have easily cried. Needless to say, emotion like that has never hit me in a James Bond movie before. Today, all I can think about is Craig and Green/Bond and Vesper. They’re haunting me.

Torture scene:
It was perfect! Daniel Craig…oh, I don’t need to keep saying it…just assume everything that works in this film comes largely down to Craig’s huge talent. As painful as it was, I actually wanted it to go on a bit longer (a few more hits) because Craig was just so thrilling to watch as an actor. I hope to one day see a full uncut version. Thank you, Eon, for having the balls (hehe) to include it.

Main titles:
Daniel Kleinmann delivered. He reinvented the Bond titles in a way that was new, yet old…whatever…they just worked! I saw them as a tribute to Fleming and the literary Bond in the way they seemed to evoke book cover art. Hope he sticks with this style.

The poisoning scene:
Every bit as good as I hoped it would be, and I had high hopes. Ditto to...

The Madagascar foot chase:
Loved it! The audience applauded at the end. One of the best Bond action sequences ever with a terrific ending. A new classic.

Felix:
Jeffrey Wright’s Felix has one brief scene with Bond…and instantly we have the best Felix moment and the best Felix actor in the series history. He MUST come back.

Sets, locations, costumes:
All beautiful and all Bond. First class. The special, timeless world of James Bond is alive and well. Unlike other “back to basics” Bond movies, we lost nothing. And what we gained was...

The emotion:
For years the filmmakers have tried to inject emotion into the Bond franchise…this time they succeeded. After this movie, it’s going to be very hard to watch something like TWINE (with its tortured attempts at DRAMA). Normally, I don’t like the personal element in my Bonds. But here it MADE the movie for me. In fact, when this movie hits DVD, I see myself fast forwarding though the action just to get to the next Craig/Green scene. But this injection of emotion also brings something very new to a Bond film...

The movie is genuinely upsetting:
This may be an odd thing to list under “pros”, but I found Casino Royale to be a very dark and truly upsetting movie. I applaud the artistic achievement here. But maybe this is why I can’t seem to write a proper review or have one feeling about it. It freaked me out. This is not Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me. This movie is by no means “fun.” It’s rough. It plunges us into a very dark, dangerous, and violent world and stays there. Good people and bad people die at the hands of some great unseen evil that is still out there. In the end, the world is not saved, and Bond does not win. He loses everything, including his soul. It’s now been 24 hours since I’ve seen the movie and I still feel unsettled. It’s that powerful.

CONS

David Arnold's score:
Didn’t David Arnold promise us a “new sound for a new Bond”? Well, to my ear, he didn’t deliver. It just sounded like every other Arnold Bond score and that REALLY bothered me because this movie demanded and deserved better. I hated watching Craig play his scenes against the soundtrack for TND-TWINE-DAD. I also felt the movie was over scored. Too much music! Look, here comes Solonge with her tinkly theme that tells us she’s female. The music worked against the new realism and too often gave the movie a bombastic feel. I don’t know, maybe I’m being hard on Arnold (God knows I couldn’t score a movie), and maybe on repeated viewings I will come to appreciate the score (I think I said this about DAD as well -- I haven’t). But walking out of the theater last night, my strongest reaction to this movie, besides my love of Craig and Green, was that I hated the music. (But this does not extend to Cornell’s song which I like a lot).

Sony product placement:
I normally don’t mind product placement in Bond films, but the constant close-ups of ONLY Sony products was laughable and became distracting. Seriously, did 10 minutes of this movie go by in which we didn’t get a giant close-up of some Sony device? This is, without question, the Bond movie with the most obvious and obnoxious product placement. Oh, and you know what? I thought all those Sony products looked like junk.

Bahamas and Miami action:
Rushed and confusing. The museum knife fight, which should have been pure Bond, was poorly staged and had no atmosphere whatsoever (shocking, considering the eerie setting). Again, natural sound instead of on-the-nose Action Music could have helped here. After the Miami airport sequence, I turned to my companion and asked her if she understood what just happened and why, and she said, “I have NO idea what’s going on in this movie.” I felt the same way. For all the talk of this movie being “different” and “new”, here I was watching just another Pierce Brosnan era Bond rushing to get to the next overloud action sequence (then Vesper came along and saved me).

QUIBBLES

Le Chiffre:
Mads Mikkelsen is a good actor and his Le Chiffre was very creepy. But I didn’t want creepy. That’s the role of a henchmen. I wanted gravitates. Le Chiffre is one of the great Fleming villains (and the last chance for us to see a true Fleming villain on film), and I feel like a casting opportunity was lost. Daniel needed the modern equivalent of Peter Lorre (CR ‘54) or Orson Welles (CR ‘67) sitting across from him. Weak villains played by (young) minor actors is very business as usual. Shame this didn’t get a “back to basics” reboot (Gert Frobe, Robert Shaw anyone?).

The gambling:
These scenes were good, but they should have been the highlight of the movie and they just weren't. Maybe I needed a quick lesson in Texas hold'em. I don’t know the game, so when cards turned up, I had to wait for someone to tell me who won. How was there not a quick little “lesson” inserted in there for the audience? Also, the inclusion of score, which too often telegraphed what was about to happen, was a real tension killer. Gambling scenes should be played dead quite, IMO.

Pre-titles sequence:
A bit of a let-down after all the hype. The recent PTS’s have been too long, now we have one that’s a little too short. The bathroom fight side of the story felt cut down to almost nothing (shame they cut the scenes they shot at Eton).

Martin Campbell:
I sometimes feel like he'll sacrifice anything for the sake of speed. Still, he was there helping craft those wonderful scenes between Daniel and Eva, so he deserves a lot of credit.

Aston Martin DB5:
Why is it in this movie? I felt sorry for it. It’s the villain’s car. Bond has no connection or love for it. He probably dumped it in the bay when he left The Bahamas. They should have left it in the past.

OVERALL

Today I give the film an 8 out of 10...but this will probably go up to 9 (or even 10?) on repeated viewings. Congrats to Eon, Daniel Craig, and all involved for giving Bond a new beginning.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great Review. I still haven't seen it. I went friday and it was sold out. The theater had 18 screens and only two for the opening weekend of a James Freakin Bond film?!! This will be the first 007 film since LTK that I didn't catch opening weekend(I'd go tommorow but I'm booked with NFL related plans).

[Genrewriter]

Terrific review, John. I agree aboiut the pretitle sequence. what was there was good but it could have been more.

[The Richmond Spy]

Great Review. I still haven't seen it. I went friday and it was sold out. The theater had 18 screens and only two for the opening weekend of a James Freakin Bond film?!! This will be the first 007 film since LTK that I didn't catch opening weekend(I'd go tommorow but I'm booked with NFL related plans).

I can relate to that although I thankfully got in last night for the 9:45pm showing. This film should do great if my town is any indication.

[The Dove]

Great Review. I still haven't seen it. I went friday and it was sold out. The theater had 18 screens and only two for the opening weekend of a James Freakin Bond film?!! This will be the first 007 film since LTK that I didn't catch opening weekend(I'd go tommorow but I'm booked with NFL related plans).

Ahh a certain Sunday Night Football match-up between the two top AFC West teams, eh Tarl?!

[Tarl_Cabot]

I wouldn't miss that game for even a new Bond movie(!).

[007Travis]

Thanks for the great review. Very well put.

As far as the gambling scenes go... I really didn't know who had won either. I could hear a few people around me explaining to someone next to them what was going on when they were playing.

I thought the main title was awesome too. I also hope he keeps to that style.

[Bucky]

Great Review. I still haven't seen it. I went friday and it was sold out. The theater had 18 screens and only two for the opening weekend of a James Freakin Bond film?!! This will be the first 007 film since LTK that I didn't catch opening weekend(I'd go tommorow but I'm booked with NFL related plans).

I can relate to that although I thankfully got in last night for the 9:45pm showing. This film should do great if my town is any indication.

some of my friends went to see it tonight but it was sold out which i couldnt help but smile about. they should have bought tickets online

[dinovelvet]

[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='18 November 2006 - 19:21']
Pre-titles sequence:
A bit of a let-down after all the hype. The recent PTS

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 03:21']

Bahamas and Miami action:

After the Miami airport sequence, I turned to my companion and asked her if she understood what just happened and why, and she said,

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 19 November 2006 - 04:28 AM.

[Publius]

Thanks HildebrandRarity, that explanation was perfect (unless we're both mistaken). I picked all that up on my first (and so far, only) run through, but I can see where some people would get lost amidst all the excitement over the new Bond and the great action and humor that we were (gratefully!) being bombarded with. This is definitely one of my favorite plots in a Bond movie, by the way.

Anyway, solid review zencat. I appreciate seeing criticisms that are logical and civil, even if I disagree with them.

[Gobi-1]

I was able to understand the plot the first time through something that took me many viewings with The World Is Not Enough.

[Blofeld's Cat]

My review up on my website:

http://web.mac.com/z...5182BD90EE.html

This is why you should be writing Bond 22 my friend!

Bravo.

[Qwerty]

Terrific review, John!

[Blofeld's Cat]

[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 14:21']

David Arnold's score:
Didn

[Loomis]

[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 03:21']
Main titles:
Daniel Kleinmann delivered. He reinvented the Bond titles in a way that was new, yet old

[Athena007]

[quote name='Loomis' post='650943' date='18 November 2006 - 23:11'][quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 03:21']This may be an odd thing to list under

[ACE]

Wonderful and interesting review, Zencat.
I agree with parts of it and disagree with some of it, naturally.
Just one point: was David Arnold's score that bad? I've always called David Arnold "the Peter Lamont of composers" (think of the work of both their predecessors to work out if that's a good thing). However, I think Arnold is helped by using YKMN as an instrumental spine, an alternate action theme a la 007 and Where Has Everybody Gone throughout the movie. I am with Loomis that the score is Arnold's best for a Bond.

Anyway, glad that you liked, loved the new Bond.

[Jim]

My review up on my website:

http://web.mac.com/z...5182BD90EE.html

I love you.

[avl]

[i][quote name='Athena007' post='651005' date='19 November 2006 - 09:52']
[quote name='Loomis' post='650943' date='18 November 2006 - 23:11'][quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 03:21']This may be an odd thing to list under

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='Loomis' post='650943' date='19 November 2006 - 07:11']
[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 03:21']
Bahamas and Miami action:
Rushed and confusing. The museum knife fight, which should have been pure Bond, was poorly staged and had no atmosphere whatsoever (shocking, considering the eerie setting).
[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 03:21']
After the Miami airport sequence, I turned to my companion and asked her if she understood what just happened and why, and she said,

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 19 November 2006 - 03:14 PM.

[Loomis]

Then the buzz word "Bourne" (an utterly useless buzz word which is bandied about far too often) is mentioned. A "Bourne Supremecy approach to the narrative" is mentioned. I, in my own feeble minded way figured it to take a page from the Thunderball or Octopussy approach to narrative.

Can someone please explain to me what "A Bourne Supremacy approach to narrative" is?

That's why I wrote "I hate to say this", because I figured that even mentioning Bourne would be taken by some as a diss towards CASINO ROYALE, although it's not intended to be one.

What I mean by "a BOURNE SUPREMACY approach to the narrative" is this: BOURNE 2 (particularly towards the beginning) is very fast and furious, one action scene after another, and often appears to come into those action scenes after they've already started. Little is explained in advance, and you don't really know who the bad guys are and what they're doing. (You'll agree that CR is not one of those spelling-everything-out-nicely-and-neatly James Bond films.... which makes a refreshing change.)

As you say of the people you saw it with:

"None of them questioned me later about what was going on and why this or that was happening in the action sequences. Perhaps they never thought of it and had simply been swept away by the emotion and shock of the tragic love angle instead...as well as the spectacle of the stunts and locations."

I think the makers of both THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and CASINO ROYALE were aiming for precisely that effect among audiences.

Like it or not, there is some Bourne influence in CR (just as there is, of course, plenty of Bond influence in Bourne), but this is no bad thing and no criticism of CR. Bond has always borrowed elements from "the competition" - it's how it's thrived over all these decades, changing tone from time to time and keeping a finger on the pulse of what's popular. Was MOONRAKER not influenced by STAR WARS? Would OCTOPUSSY have turned out exactly the same had RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK not been made?

[HildebrandRarity]

Little is explained in advance, and you don't really know who the bad guys are and what they're doing. (You'll agree that CR is not one of those spelling-everything-out-nicely-and-neatly James Bond films.... which makes a refreshing change.)

No actually, I disagree entirely. It is ALL spelled out. Every single scene has a reason for "being". Were we watching the same movie? I know I saw it twice in one day...but I got it on first viewing.

It's spelled out in the Uganda sequence at Obanno's camp where Mr White introduces Le Chiffre to Obanno, in the Le Chiffre-to-London-stockbroker-phone-call sequence, In Dimitrios's visit to Le Chiffre on his yatch, in Bond's seduction of Solange (last flight to Miami), in Bond's warning to headquarters by cell phone from MIA, in MI6's phone call to M in her bedroom, in M's frantic call to Bond during his pursuit of Carlos the bomber.

It's all spelt out. That is why this movie is 1/2 an hour longer than most movies.

Further there is a fair amout of screen time between the first action and the second action:
- M's dressing down of Bond in her appartment
- Bond finding his way to Nassau and going through the security room at the Ocean Club to track down "Ellipsis"
- The scene that sets up Bond's prowess at poker where he beats Dimitrios
- Bond's seduction of Solange in an effort to extract information (You don't see Bourne doing that, do you?)
- Bond tracking Dimitrios to Miami.

All the above takes place BETWEEN action one and action two. That's about HALF AN HOUR!!!. How is that like "Bourne Supremacy type wall-to-wall action?

Please explain?

We get to see how intelligent Bond is (tracking down the Ellipsis clue from Mollaka's backpack at the embassy in Madagascar to M's home in London all the way to the security room of the Ocean Club in the Bahamas) and how he uses women for information (the girl at the concierge desk and Solange).

In summary, we get to see at least a couple of Bond's character traits as well as his talent at cards and at seduction and at investigation BEFORE action scene number 2.

I really think you viewed a different version of Casino Royale than I. To say it went from one action sequence to the next is a statement that borders on the, well, the humorous.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 19 November 2006 - 04:40 PM.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 03:21']
My review up on my website:

http://web.mac.com/z...5182BD90EE.html

CONS



Sony product placement:
I normally don

[Double-0-Seven]

Great review! I personally understood the gambling scenes because I play Texas Hold 'Em a lot with my friends, but I do agree they should of had a small scene explaining a little bit of it for the people who don't know.

[zencat]

Wonderful and interesting review, Zencat.
I agree with parts of it and disagree with some of it, naturally.
Just one point: was David Arnold's score that bad? I've always called David Arnold "the Peter Lamont of composers" (think of the work of both their predecessors to work out if that's a good thing). However, I think Arnold is helped by using YKMN as an instrumental spine, an alternate action theme a la 007 and Where Has Everybody Gone throughout the movie. I am with Loomis that the score is Arnold's best for a Bond.

Anyway, glad that you liked, loved the new Bond.

I feel bad for going after Arnold (really, it's my only criticism of the film). You may be right, it might be his best Bond score. I've actually always been an Arnold defender. I've had discussions with Bond fans who have argued it’s time to change composers, and I've always said Arnold is fine. He makes the movies sound like Bond movies -- a hard thing to do -- and that's all I require.

But that was the Brosnan era. After CR, I now see the Brosnan films as Bond pastiches (that's not really a criticism -- I enjoy pastiche when well done). Arnold's scores also feel like pastiche. That worked great with the Brosnan films, but I instantly recoiled at that sound in this film which is a true original Ian Fleming James Bond movie with a bold new actor and approach. Like Kleimann's titles, and the casting of Craig, this movie requires evolution and a bold new artistic choices. But I know it’s hard and dangerous to change the Bond sound and I can understand why Eon wanted to play it safe. I know they fell flat when they tried this in GoldenEye (which I don't think is all that bad actually). Who could have known just how good all their "risky" choices were going to turn out.

Maybe if this was his first score, if I didn't associate his sound with the Brosnan films, I'd be praising it to the moon. But... Yeah, I feel bad. But the thing with this movie is, I was so turned inside out by it, all I can do express my visceral reactions, fair or otherwise.

My review up on my website:

http://web.mac.com/z...5182BD90EE.html

I love you.

I 'invited' 7 others (6 of them being "non-Bond" fans) to my second viewing on Friday. During drinks after the movie, every single one of them (the "non-Bond" fans...4 of them being women) thought the movie, although "good"/"very good"/"enjoyable", found it a touch "too long".

None of them questioned me later about what was going on and why this or that was happening in the action sequences.

I explained in post 10 above how I found the first half to be fairly straight forward and easy enough to follow. The posts indicate that there are people out there that need to have their Bond plot details "spelled out".

The word "Rushed" was mentioned...BUT it ALREADY is a 2h 24m movie, folks! How can they spell things out even more without blasting out the already long run time?!

And do we need to "dumb down" plot elements in future Bond installments with Craig?

Don't worry, HildebrandRarity. This really wasn't a critism of the film. The structure is excellent and, you’re right, all the information is there on the screen for the audience to understand. Just, for me, at this point things were moving very very fast. There were a lot of names being mentioned...a lot of computer and cellphone screens filled with information...now someone is dead, and now we're in Miami, and now someone has a bomb and there's a keyring with a timer and a tanker truck and...I kind of checked out and just watched Craig do his thing.

But this happens to me in action movies. I watched X-Men 3 and at no time could I stop the movie and explain exactly what was going on or why (even through I'm sure the info was all there). But this could all be about age. After 40, everything takes effort, even thinking, so I sometimes try and coast though action movies without really paying close attention (I find I won't read computer or cellphone screens containing that critical bit of plot info - and CR does this a lot). I liked all the lovey stuff because it gave me time to look at the nice pretty girl...and the torture, which suggests I'm one sick old dude.

I could turn this all around and say CR, in it's first 40 minutes, is very much a 2006 action movie and those who enjoy (and can follow) something like MI3 will probably find the first 40 mins the best part of the film.

[Loomis]

Little is explained in advance, and you don't really know who the bad guys are and what they're doing. (You'll agree that CR is not one of those spelling-everything-out-nicely-and-neatly James Bond films.... which makes a refreshing change.)

No actually, I disagree entirely. It is ALL spelled out. Every single scene has a reason for "being". Were we watching the same movie? I know I saw it twice in one day...but I got it on first viewing.

It's spelled out in the Uganda sequence at Obanno's camp where Mr White introduces Le Chiffre to Obanno, in the Le Chiffre-to-London-stockbroker-phone-call sequence, In Dimitrios's visit to Le Chiffre on his yatch, in Bond's seduction of Solange (last flight to Miami), in Bond's warning to headquarters by cell phone from MIA, in MI6's phone call to M in her bedroom, in M's frantic call to Bond during his pursuit of Carlos the bomber.

It's all spelt out. That is why this movie is 1/2 an hour longer than most movies.

Further there is a fair amout of screen time between the first action and the second action:
- M's dressing down of Bond in her appartment
- Bond finding his way to Nassau and going through the security room at the Ocean Club to track down "Ellipsis"
- The scene that sets up Bond's prowess at poker where he beats Dimitrios
- Bond's seduction of Solange in an effort to extract information (You don't see Bourne doing that, do you?)
- Bond tracking Dimitrios to Miami.

All the above takes place BETWEEN action one and action two. That's about HALF AN HOUR!!!. How is that like "Bourne Supremacy type wall-to-wall action?

Please explain?

We get to see how intelligent Bond is (tracking down the Ellipsis clue from Mollaka's backpack at the embassy in Madagascar to M's home in London all the way to the security room of the Ocean Club in the Bahamas) and how he uses women for information (the girl at the concierge desk and Solange).

In summary, we get to see at least a couple of Bond's character traits as well as his talent at cards and at seduction and at investigation BEFORE action scene number 2.

I really think you viewed a different version of Casino Royale than I. To say it went from one action sequence to the next is a statement that borders on the, well, the humorous.

Well, it moved too fast for me, chief, but I'm planning on seeing the film again tomorrow, so rest assured that I like it and am not on a crusade to knock it.

Incidentally, have you seen the Bournes? What did you think of them? Just out of interest.

[HildebrandRarity]

Then the buzz word "Bourne" (an utterly useless buzz word which is bandied about far too often) is mentioned.

Can someone please explain to me what "A Bourne Supremacy approach to narrative" is?

That's why I wrote "I hate to say this"...

Like it or not, there is some Bourne influence in CR (just as there is, of course, plenty of Bond influence in Bourne)

History tells us that there is no such thing as originality in Hollywood. You say yourself Bourne steals from Bond, etc.

Bond stole from Hitchcock and vice versa, if you recall.

Etcetera, etcetera.

Tell me Loomis, upon reflection do you still think CR was like BS even after me pointing out all the stuff that happened between Mollaka and Carlos?

Further, Don't you think that Bond was more multidementional that the Jason character in Casino Royale? And don't you think Bond had WAY MORE style with a taste for the finer things in life in CR than Bourne does in BS?

I cant see Bourne seducing a married woman and ordering Beluga caviar and
Bollinger Grand Annee'...I can't see Bourne wearing fine taylored suits...I can't see Bourne in an expensive Aston Martin with refinements...I can't see Bourne as a womanizer and a drinker...I can't see Bourne as a man who can mingle with society's upper crust and be comfortable doing so...I can't see Bourne as a card sharp.

Bourne is a one dimentional assassin in BS. Bond is so much more in CR...So much more. I

t's crystal clear who the more interesting one is.

I just do not see the comparison between the two, i'm afraid. Bourne, in my opinion, has none of the style and charisma of James Bond in CR.

Enlighten me if you can, Loomis.

[Jim]

Calmly there, pickle.

I do agree, though - I don't get the Bourne comparisons. Initials aside, and that they're both "spies", I don't see it. I like them both, and (perhaps it's denial) don't see the need to compare nor that comparisions are easily drawn.

[Loomis]

Tell me Loomis, upon reflection do you still think CR was like BS even after me pointing out all the stuff that happened between Mollaka and Carlos?

Yes. The gritty direction (although I'm fully aware that Bourne did not invent "gritty", and, yes, I know that there's plenty of humour in CR [the Bournes are almost 100% humour-free]), the younger hero, the multiple villains, the brutality of the violence, the handheld camerawork (yes, there is some, although I'm certainly not claiming that there's remotely as much as in SUPREMACY), the fast-moving action, and of course the film's artistic excellence - all of these aspects recall BOURNE SUPEMACY as far as I'm concerned.

However, I am not saying that CR is a Bourne ripoff, which is something I think you're inferring. And I don't mean to overstate the Bourne influence, either. It's pretty small in the scheme of things - the biggest influences are, of course, the other Bond films and Fleming.... but it's there. And there's nothing wrong with it.

Is there?

Bourne, in my opinion, has none of the style and charisma of James Bond in CR.

I agree, but I've never said otherwise. Bond is indeed a much more interesting and charismatic character. Again, I'm not talking up Bourne at the expense of Bond. Possible to enjoy both, no?