Casino Royale

So does Daniel Craig make a good Bond? Forget the film this seems to be THE question. There was a mixed reaction from the assembled passengers in the car on the way back from the Cinema. His Bond is certainly harder and somewhat more realistic than the Brosnan version, closer to Timothy Dalton (my personal favourite). There is blood that needs to be washed off, but no bruises, and recovering from 'flat lining' to full health inside an hour is just a step too far. Still that IS Bond, so I shan't be too critical, it is part of why the entertainment works.
So to some of the truly impressive things about the film. The 'free-running' chase was remarkable, the best chase I've seen in a long time. Its' sheer energy, effort, and surprises, and the looks of exhaustion on the actors faces made it a real high light. The contrast between action and physiological tension - in and out of the poker game - was also a good mix, and something of a rarity in Bond terms. A nice addition, and other piece of reality that makes the fantasy more believable. Then there are the stunning special effects, the record achieved of turning a car over seven times, and driving through a moving bendy bus. Both these have been on so many spoilers, and were even in adverts at the start of the show, that they are de-valued before they are seen.
Some things are missing from the usual formula. No outrageous gadgets - Bond survives using his wits, intelligence, and fighting skills. That makes for a better story, although I did miss the banter with Q. Which brings me to quips, there aren't really any of those either - Bond is a much more serious, reflective character, hard nosed, less flippant. This is probably closer to the books. Womanising is largely missing, too - and where it does occur it is so obviously used as a means to an end, not as a character trait.
The big new addition to this Bond is a real woman. Not the 'Oh James' types of the seventies and eighties, nor the ones who can clearly look after themselves, and think they can do the job better. This one (Eva Green) is intelligent, and involved in the plot, she's also affected by the mayhem around Bond (and therefore her) in a realistic way. She is a proper love interest for Bond, not just a woman on the side. This was the only part of the film I really didn't enjoy. I'll call it the Travel Brochure Scenes. Just too long, half the length would be more than enough. We get the picture, and we know it isn't going to last, so just get on with the story.
Yes, the story. Partly about Bond, and partly about his mission. Some of the strategy seems a little strange - we're going to bankrupt this man so that his associates will kill him, and then when they threaten to do just that they are eliminated. Or did I miss something?
Key elements of the genre are retained. Bond does not kill any innocents. Bond is not corruptable, he has a job to do and is true to it. People are important, property is not. This film provides a way to develop the newly promotes double-o in other ways, to keep the interest of a new generation, and three older generations judging by the audience.

Was it a good film - Yes. It was not too long, just about right. Should you go and see it? If you're a Bond fan or enjoy action films - yes.