"Do I look like I give a damn?" That's our new scraggly and bruised Bond responding, when asked by a barman if he'd like his martini shaken or stirred. It’s a tongue-firmly-in-cheek line that's meant to redirect our anticipation from the formula. It also validates Daniel Craig’s take as a compelling agent - who sweats, huffs and puffs when he runs, and bleeds when he's punched in the face - is indeed different than his cliché ancestors.

Casino Royale is certainly the riskiest of Bonds, and it establishes itself among the top because almost every angle pays off, including releasing this Bond as a sociopath, emotionally controlled to the point of appearing as a frightening badass. Even the script is sharper than you might expect - due to a major rewrite by Director Paul Haggis (Crash).

Daniel Craig (remember him from the underrated Layer Cake?) is a perfect fit for the iconic M16 agent, darker and more mortal than his predecessors originally penned by Ian Fleming. It was a risk was replacing Pierce Brosnan with the blonde-haired, sapphire-eyed Craig, who is far more athletic than his 007 brethren. But a more interesting risk was to follow the lead of "Batman Begins" and start from the beginning; this is Bond's first assignment after earning his "00" number and the accompanying license to kill. The result is a fast-paced, gadget-free flick stocked with surprisingly intense scenes.

Directed by Martin Campbell (GoldenEye), the film is based on the first Bond book by author Ian Fleming, which was published in 1953. And, other than coming from the same source, it has no connection with the '67 Casino Royale with Peter Sellers.