The question of change often comes up with any discussion concerning James Bond. Most of the time he pursues his goal to the very end, determined and unwavering. Occasionally there are instances where the well-appointed gentlemen adopts a new approach, but these are few and far between. Casino Royale is one of these rare instances.
The Change Dramatica speaks of with the Main Character Resolve is a change of approach, or point-of-view, on how to solve problems. It's not about a change of career or change of goals. It is a paradigm shift away from a previously held inner justification.
The best way to figure out whether or not you're dealing with this kind of character is to rewind your Main Character to the beginning of the story and ask, would he or she behave in the same way now that they've been through this story?
And the answer with Bond in Casino Royale is clearly no.
Bond is a spy and as a spy he is tasked with gathering information. In the beginning of the film he screws that up by impulsively killing the bomb-maker Mollaka. He lets his passions get the best of him (the passion for survival) and robs M of valuable information.
Contrast this with the end of the film where he has the man responsible for his love's death squarely in his sights and instead of killing this man, Bond chooses to lightly wound him instead. Bond has a found a way to control his passions in order to accomplish his mission; he has Changed the way he solves problems. Because of his experience with Vesper, were he to go back in time and revisit that initial decision with Mollaka he would have acted differently. His perspective has Changed.
This question came up recently on the Discuss Dramatica site and reminded me of an article I had written about the film several years ago. During an upgrade of this site, that article was lost. I recently found the article, cleaned it up and published it here in the Narrative First Vault. If you would like to read more about it you can find it here: Casino Royale: Rewinding Your Main Character