Brosnan was the best Bond full stop, he also got the worst films/directors/scripts to work with and still felt bond-ish.
The books don't really mean anything, 90% of people who watch the films haven't read the book, they can basically be seen as two separate entities. People liked the Bond filmes, the new bond films as of Casino, are an entirely different series of films, and no one told anyone.
Taken on their own, they are rubbish films
Casino Royale might have grittier action which may or may not be closer to the books(i've not read them) and I don't really care if they are a completely different style, its just a rubbish film thats well shot with stupid action. I love that if the camera jumps around fast and the punches are shot to look harder, the action is deemed better, at least since Bourne Identity.
The film is what I hate, the story is rubbish, the sitting in a casino playing cards while trying to be witty and failing miserably throughout, was simply boring, the epic fail of the mid film "action sequence" - must attach electrodes to my man boobs. Then whacking someone in the balls a lot.
That Bond comes across as stupid throughout, not witty, and not at all charming. Craig looks a bit weird, isn't charming but gets the girls? Older bonds make much more sense when picking up the women(not a lot, but some

).
QoS, is just rubbish, in every way, start to finish, horrific story, some woeful casting, ridiculous over the top unbelievable action. It was as non sensical and badly done as the later Brosnan films, asides from the action looking better shot, more high def and less embarassing like in Die another day with the drill going through the ship etc, it had the same embarassingly poor feel to it.
I'd quite happily see Brosnan back as Bond, with Goldeneye era scripts, darker, better action, whatever, but a much more "epic" bond villian/story line, but one thats coherant.