Movie Review: Casino Royale

I just got back from seeing Casino Royale, the newest entry in the James Bond series. This, the 21st film in the series, is an adaptation of the very first Bond novel. The movie marks the first time Ian Fleming's work has actually been involved with a Bond movie since 1987's The Living Daylights. While Fleming's titles, and occasional passages from the books, were used until then, no movie has actually tried to remain faithful to its source material since 1964's Goldfinger. Royale puts that streak to an end, by not only using the title but telling the story of the novel, though with some tweaks to modernize it.

The story pits our hero against Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorists. Le Chiffre has lost a lot of his clients' money when a terrorist attack is foiled by Bond and has set up a high stakes game of poker at the Casino Royale to get it back. The British government decides to stake Bond in the game so he can clean Le Chiffre out and then offer him sanctuary in return for information.

The movie, while telling a modernized story, has quite a retro feel to it. As already noted, the novel on which the film was based is the very first one. So, true to the book Bond is a newly minted double-O. The pre-title sequence shows his first two kills which earn him the rank and is in black and white. Bond drives a 1964 Aston Martin early in the film. And his swimsuit and sunglasses have a decidedly 1960's feel to them. But Bond is all 21st century. Cell phones and text messages feature prominently. And the big card game between Bond and Le Chiffre is the highly popular Texas Hold 'Em poker rather than baccarat as in the novel.

As a Bond movie, this one is very scaled back. The usual touches are not there. The opening visual that has been used in every movie since From Russia With Love (the white disk moving across the screen to reveal Bond) is absent, though the shot into the gun barrel is there. The Bond theme music is absent until the closing credits, and when it is finally played it's the old style version, not the amped up hard rock version of the Brosnan movies. The signature line ("Bond, James Bond") almost misses the film. Q is absent. Moneypenny is absent, at least in body; there is some word play in one scene that evokes her memory ("I'm the money." "And worth every penny."). Gadgets, other than cell phones, laptops, and a defibrillator, are absent. Bond drinks martinis, but doesn't really "give a damn" whether they are shaken or stirred.

Instead, we have a Bond who gets the crap kicked out of him, who nearly dies, who bleeds and gets bruises. We have a Bond who makes mistakes, then loses his temper and composure, reverting to being a thug or, as M so aptly puts it, a blunt instrument. We have a Bond who is subjected to a very uncomfortable torture scene, and who escapes only due to luck. In other words, a more realistic Bond.

The big question, of course, is how well new Bond Daniel Craig fairs in his debut. With all the franchise gimmicks taken away, the film rests solely on his muscular shoulders. Honestly, I'm not sure. His Bond is a cold hearted, brutal SOB. Emphasis on cold. His blue eyes might as well be ice. Dalton tried to go that way in his movies, at least License to Kill. Brosnan hinted at it at times in his movies. But no one has been this cold. As a read of the literary Bond, Craig is superb. As the cornerstone of a movie franchise, I'm not so sure. While he has the coldness and brutality down pat, there is little appealing about the character or the man.

As a film, the pacing is a bit strange. The first maybe 3rd of the film is very fast moving and action packed. Then it settles down to mostly pure drama for most of the rest of the film, until one last climax of action. It's never boring. The drama sections have an element of tension to them as Le Chiffre and Bond face off. It is testimony to Craig's performance that the film can slow down so much, and stay so slow, and yet be interesting. It makes for a good movie, but can a franchise continue for long with such films?

One thing that's interesting about the film. Typically an actor's first foray into Bond is weak. Each actor has brought a different interpretation, but the script is typically customized for the prior Bond. So, for example, Dalton comes off kind of awkward in The Living Daylights because it was written for Roger Moore, even though Dalton was a quite different Bond. This film seems tailor made for Daniel Craig. In fact, it is hard to see Brosnan (who I loved as Bond) in this film.

In the end, this is a very different Bond film, much more brutal than its predecessors and less formulaic. Daniel Craig delivers a very good performance as the Bond of the novels. But it remains to be seen how well he can morph into a Bond more suited to the franchise.