The truth is that so many elements of what the Bond films originally brought to cinema have been incorporated into other film series - the “Mission: Impossible” films, the “Bourne” films, the “Fast and Furious” films - that to create a first-rate Bond adventure, something more is required. The film was trying to be “emotional,” but that poor-little-spy-boy origin story didn’t enlarge Bond - it diminished him. “Quantum of Solace” was all trumped-up mechanics, “Spectre” was an elaborate piece of product that went through the motions - and “Skyfall,” though I realize many Bond watchers think it’s a masterpiece, was, to me, sodden and overstated, with a meta-hammy megalomaniac performance by Javier Bardem and a backstory to Bond that was maudlin with self-pity. (I’ve seen it countless times, and it’s one of my favorite films of its era.) To me, the trio of Bond films that came after “Casino Royale” have added up to one of the most profoundly disappointing follow-throughs of any contemporary film series. I thought “Casino Royale,” the first film in which Daniel Craig portrayed 007, was the greatest Bond film since the early Sean Connery days, and in many ways the most perfectly realized Bond movie ever. It’s an unabashedly conventional Bond film that’s been made with high finesse and just the right touch of soul, as well as enough sleek surprise to keep you on edge.īefore I go further, though, let me lay my baccarat cards on the table. “ No Time to Die” is a terrific movie: an up-to-the-minute, down-to-the-wire James Bond thriller with a satisfying neoclassical edge.

Eva green casino royale purple dress