The obvious thing about the new Bond is he’s new. Daniel Craig is the wounded and damaged Bond just beginning his service to the Queen, amassing both his kills required for double-O status in a brutal and icing performance that will have viewers wondering just who this fellow is who relies not on quips and gadgets to win the day but brute strength and ape-like adherence to his mission and loyalty to the Crown.
In this sense, Casino Royale plays like a much more serious spy flick than we’ve been treated to in the last few installments, which had pretty much devolved to John Cleese levels of cheese. Given Bond’s new look and new plot, which has been adapted somewhat liberally by Neil Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis (who apparently is responsible for every script currently in development, given his recent cash cow status as Hollywood’s “It” man), it’s not surprising that there would be some detractors. Thankfully, yours truly is not one of them.
Most sentiments boiled down to a dislike of the concept of a blonde Bond, though nowhere in the series is any particular hair colour necessary. As far as I know, only two kills is necessary to receive MI6 approval, and killer hair isn’t one of them. Craig plays Bond with cool detachment, making mistakes almost as often as he succeeds, and its this vulnerability and fallibility that gives us sympathy for his task.
After an unfortunate wide-open kill is caught on surveillance, M (Judi Dench) assigns Bond to a high stakes game of…poker. Yes, that’s right. No laser weapons from space, no hidden submarines or media moguls to fight. It’s down to aces as Bond must play against Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a terrorist financier who stands to win $150 million at the fabulous Casino Royale in Montenegro (much of the film was shot in Czech Republic and rogue signage can be seen in a few of the shots). Should Bond lose, Le Chiffre would be able to bankroll a terrorist organization who wishes to, what else, wreak terror upon an unsuspecting populace. To assist Bond in beating the statistics genius Le Chiffre, Bond is joined by the treasury agent who controls Bond’s cash flow Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and her friend Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini).
Naturally, Bond performs unbelievable feats in which his intellect, shooting skills, and pure brute strength are called upon, travelling to exotic locales like Venice and Madagascar, meeting and sleeping with beautiful women, and of course, killing bad guys. But it’s a different Bond we see here, not the suave and urbane Bond given to us by Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, but a killer, a lonely and sometimes naive bloke who nevertheless wants some measure of humanity, even if his job leads him to acts that are unspeakably cruel. We know he’s different when a bartender asks him whether he’d like his martini shaken or stirred and he replies with some petulance, “Do I look like I give a damn?”
The script engages in less verbal foreplay than has been the norm in recent Bond flicks, instead going for the throat with physical stunts and action sequences. But what’s more remarkable is the truth of the character who has been reimagined. Bond is not immortal, but a character with deep flaws and deep loyalties, whose decisions aren’t always the best, and whose tough shell exterior hides someone who might, just might, have a heart. If he’s not what you expect in a double-O agent, it’s time to rethink things.
The film has its flaws, mostly in terms of length and a few moments of sappy unbelievability, but overall, it’s a fine reimagining of the construct of Bond as we know it. It’s the best thing to happen to the franchise.
Fringe Rating: 
out of 5
Movie Review
Casino Royale
Discussion
Comments are disallowed for this post.
Categories
- Abortion
- Advertising
- Art
- Blog Maintenance
- Blogs of War
- Book Review
- Carnival of the Vanities
- Christian Carnival
- Court Cases
- Culture and Society
- Film
- France
- Fringecast
- General Blogs
- General Essays
- General Links
- General Rants
- Ireland
- Israel & Palestine
- Motion
- Photography
- Political Essays
- Political Rants
- Politics
- Portfolio
- Products
- Religious News
- Rest In Peace
- Scripture Musings
- Search Engine Optimization
- Summer Olympics 2004
- television
- Uncategorized
- Web
- Web 2.0
- Writing
- Zen Musings
© 2006 . 
So yea, those polish movie posters? Yech.
Alien is on page two. It is a pink ribcage with eyes. Nothing to do with the movie.
And the Planet of the Apes poster? It has the friggin statue of liberty in the picture. It ruins the climax of the movie.
And later on, King Soloman’s mines? There’s no monster in the movie that looks like that.
They should put all those posters in a polish submarine and then let it sink to the bottom of the ocean. (on account of the screen doors letting in the water)
So I took time to read and reflect on your review.
I think that the adaptation from the book was quite good considering the writers were able to weave in modern elements like text messaging without detracting from the plot itself. The ending of the book was slow and drab, and in a way very anticlimatic, with Vesper committing suicide after a week long honeymoon-style vacation with Bond where she cried and pulled away as much as she was affectionate. The ending written for the movie I feel was much more befitting to an action story than Flemming’s original “moriendo” pace.
My favorite part of this movie was that it did not seem to be an ad for anything, and any product placement that did exist in this movie was not terribly obvious. If you compare this movie to *cringe* Die Another Day, the difference is fantastic. Not only are there not product placements every five minutes, but it seems that they have decided to not try to commercialise Bond himself.
The last movie the tacked on character Jynx was solely there to have a spin off movie franchise… thankfully Berry’s overly touted acting ability combined with a less than spectacular performance in DAD crushed the idea of a spin off.
To divy up Bond into simply a way for EON to make money is to decapitate the series and separate it from what people pay to go see: a good spy story with high tech gadgets and implied sex. While this story was lighter on both of the latter, I think it does convey better than the book how Bond became as successful in the public eye has he has.
Just because Bond has been typecast in the movies does not mean that what has been portrayed on screen is true to the characer portrayed in the books (for those obtuse enough to actually read them).
This screen Bond is a much better portrayal of the literary Bond (who I’ve long had an affinity for): a human who sometimes does the wrong thing, but manages to use his intellect and whatever is available at the moment to get the job done. It should come as no surprise that my favorite screen Bond was Timothy Dalton, although it seems to me he played the part just a tad too dark and moody.
Fleming’s Bond rarely uses gadgets of any kind, only ordinary stuff that was in his world of the early 60′s. That is why I liked Bond using cell phones, text messaging etc, same thing as Bond of the books, just updated for our times. As far as his other usual tepid movie swarminess, I was very happy to see it go by the wayside. Bond never needed a smart one liner in the books, the look 007 gives the man in the airport (just before he unknowingly detonates himself) was perfect. The “I got the best of you and you had no idea” without saying a word (much less anything cheesy) was very much Ian Fleming’s James Bond. In fact, the title of the movie is in fact “Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale” implying that it is more Ian Fleming’s character and less Albert R. Brocoli’s franchise 007 we are seeing.
I hope there are more to come.
For anyone who has seen the movie: remember the chase scene through the construction project? Google “parkour” you might find it interesting.
Sounds like my kind of guy. But I just can’t get over the government endorsing gambling…!