As the saying goes: "they don't make them like they used to". And while that's a line as cliched as the Bond franchise has itself become, it's quite often true. That's not to say that "they" aren't trying; franchise re-imaginings and revivals seem to be all the rage these days, particularly with the superhero fraternity. There's the sense of a conscious effort being made to recapture past glories.

It doesn't always work; it's difficult to describe Superman Returns as capturing the true spirit of its origin, and most attempts at rebooting horror franchises just go horribly wrong. So the prospect of giving Bond a fresh new outlook evoked mixed feelings in me. It could have gone so terribly wrong, but it gives me great pleasure to say that Casino Royale gets things right. Mostly.

The plot revolves around Le Chiffre, banker to terrorists the world over. In order to bring him down, causing financial distress throughout the world's terror organisations, Bond must enter a high stakes card game at the titular Casino Royale. This central element is bookended by the usual Bond set pieces and exposition.

The "usual Bond" set pieces? Isn't this new Bond? It's not accurate to say that the Bond franchise has had a lick of paint; a more accurate description would be that it sports something of a distressed look. Things feel somewhat darker and more dangerous than the series has felt in recent times. There's an undercurrent of tension running through most of the proceedings, even if the scenery and women look as delightful as ever; this is still very much a Bond movie. At times, it feels like the early days, eons – if you'll pardon the pun – from Moore's raised eyebrow, and Brosnan's recent high-tech shenanigans.

There's been much talk of dispensing with the gadgets – there's no Q in this movie – and making Bond more serious. If anyone had any fears over whether Bond's latest outing would remain faithful to its cinematic origins, worry not – fans should find much to like here. From the outset, it's apparent that this is still the James we all know and love. The insane set pieces, occasional wisecrack,  and love for the ladies remain. And yet there's a seriousness, an intensity, to this new Bond that only serves to enhance the character.

For the record: I never doubted Daniel Craig. His casting always made sense to me – rather him than Clive Owen – and I was curious to see what he'd do with the character. It's thanks to Daniel Craig then, that this film is as good as it is. He has the cold blue eyes of a killer, a physique that suggests he'd actually be capable of the violence he portrays, and moves with a riveting combination of style and menace. Craig is not only a convincing Bond, he's a compelling one.

What's more, there's genuine chemistry between Eva Green's Vesper Lynd and Craig's Bond. The pair look great together, and their initial banter effectively establishes and binds their relationship – something that's key to the success of the film. There's a moment about half way through the film that finds Bond comforting Lynd after an ordeal. It's performed with such skill by both actors that it's one of the film's more memorable images.

It's a shame then, that there's some mildly clunky dialogue during the couple's later, romantic moments. It doesn't ruin the film, but it has a detrimental effect on something that's already the film's biggest problem: pacing.

The fist half of Casino is fast paced, high octane, high tension stuff; the initial, free-running inspired chase sequence is one of the best on-foot chases I've seen in recent times. But as the action shifts to the card game, things start to slow down a little. It still works; director Martin Campbell does a good job of keeping the tension up throughout the game, but from the halfway mark the film's pace drops. It's not fair to say it drags, but maintaining its pace through its 140 minute duration – the longest Bond film ever – isn't one of its achievements.

Elements of exposition don't help either – Giancarlo Giannini's character at times seems to exist solely to explain what's happening in the card game, and it's unnecessary. Another contributor to the pacing problem is the unavoidable fact that the film's final set piece isn't something particularly exciting. Again, it's well executed, but it's something audiences have seen before. Certain plot developments don't help either, but I won't spoil anything here. Suffice to say that the pay-off doesn't feel as satisfying as perhaps it should.

Pacing may be the film's biggest problem, but it's a long way from ruining it. Thanks to Campbell's direction, Green, Dench – returning as M, and the only real link to the Brosnan era, Mads Mikkelsen's impressively menacing portrayal of Le Shiffre, and Craig's brilliance, Casino Royale still ranks as a great film. Perhaps more importantly, it ranks as a great Bond film – and that's what's important.

I'm not going to say Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever just yet – I'll give him another film before making a call on that one. For now, I'll go so far as to say he's as good as Connery. Given time, he might surpass Connery's work, and I look forward to finding out.