Much of this (even at times the unstainable tuxedo) has been retained for Casino Royale, but it doesn’t feel the same. And there is so much more. There’s backstory, there’s love and loss, there’s expert cinematography and very good acting. There’s a woman, not a girl, with motivations of her own. There’s real, sustained character empathy, where before there was mere enjoyment. Casino Royale is, in short, a fine film. That’s where my alarm bells start to go off.

The only Bond movie I’ve seen that, for me, qualifies as a better-than-average piece of cinema (even action cinema) is Dr. No. In all the others, the pace drags, or the plot spins out of control, or the movie is just a string of chases and explosions held together by Roger Moore’s raised eyebrows or Sean Connery’s winning smile. Memorable action flicks have to do a lot more than most Bond flicks have bothered to do, even respectable efforts like Goldeneye. They have to have the same qualities as all narrative fiction: good characters, credibility, and an involving story, as well as eye-popping visuals and a common denominator of acting. To expect all of these things to come together for a franchise as reliable as the James Bond films is near-unnecessary; scores of people will go to see a paper sack in a bow tie play James Bond, as long as there are kickass explosions and maybe a boat chase.