I’ve never been one for the 007 series. Beyond Sean Connery - who’s a man’s man and showed the world seduction is as effortless as firing a gun - the series has been built around easy cliches, gimmicks and special effects.

Can’t forget those Bond girls, either.

But the hype for “Casino Royale,” with Daniel Craig in the Bond role for the first time, had me hopeful. I had nothing against Pierce Brosnan, but the films around his polished version of Bond had grown stale. Toss in a saucy but not sexy Halle Berry (”Die Another Day”), and it was time for the franchise to change hands.

Daniel Craig is great in the larger-than-life shoes of James Bond. He handles the witty repartee and charm of Bond ably, but it’s the action sequences where he really takes audiences for a ride. He’s a Bond who’s not afraid to get his hands dirty or take some major scrapes. And for the first time since Connery’s films, the Bond guy looks like he could - and would gladly - kick your butt. Craig has a physique that makes you believe he could snap you like a twig, and the ice blue eyes of a cold killer.

But the film around him is long and lifeless.

Beyond the incredible first half-hour and a chase scene that leaves you reeling, there’s little to hold your interest beyond Craig’s rough-and-tumble character. The two Bond girls are beautiful - especially the voluptious Catarina Murino - and better-suited to their roles than any in recent memory.

The final sequence of the film drags, after a high-stakes poker sequence that lasts almost 45 minutes. Forgive me, but the only thing more boring that watching people play poker might be watching people study quantum physics. The filmmakers tried to salvage the game with a few surprises - but the problem is that it looks like they tried.

In the end, what could have been a gritty, startling rebirth of the Bond franchise becomes little more than just another James Bond flick. Let’s hope filmmakers take a cue from Craig next go round and leave the edges appropriately rough.