Bonding agent

WHILE I agree with the early critical praise that Daniel Craig makes a superb Bond, the “fact” that Craig gained “20 pounds of muscle” for the role is simply erroneous [“Here Comes Trouble,” Nov. 12].

It’s akin to claiming that Craig “grew 5 inches for the part”; you simply cannot gain “20 pounds of muscle” in a short amount of time, short of steroid abuse.

Please stop caving into the PR machine and accepting this as fact; it is simply impossible to do so legally, it is a massive exaggeration. Thanks for the well-written article.

JIM JAMES

Newport Beach

*

DANIEL CRAIG is just fine as Bond -- it’s everything else about “Casino Royale” that is troubled -- and troubling.

Interminable “action” sequences so tedious that viewers were yawning? Product placements so blatant that characters actually have to mention them? A running time so extended that even a “climax” that features an entire Venetian house sinking into the Laguna Veneta doesn’t help?

Is this what the producers of the Bond legacy call “re-imagining” their franchise?

HARLAN LEBO

West Los Angeles

*

GIVEN that “Casino Royale” has nearly unanimous approval from critics (an astounding 94% out of 160 critics on rottentomatoes.com give it a positive review) and that it is just jaw-droppingly superior to all action movies this year, why is it totally unheard of for this movie to be considered for best picture of the year?

I know the fact that it is an action movie and a sequel are reasons why it shouldn’t be considered, but it’s beyond excellent should move it into consideration. Academy voters should start thinking outside the box.

PHILIP RAMOS

Westfield, N.Y.