Casino Royale

'OOkay'

Before anything else, quick, take a deep breath and relax. Bond is ok, in fact, Bond is in excellent shape. It's true he's a blond and he's built like a giant pouting brick wall, but no one has given bond such danger and charm as Daniel Craig since the Connery days. At first glance, Craig might not seem like the ideal candidate for the part, but trust me, it pays off well and I am glad to hear he will be back for the next bond film. Their is a glint of sadistic enjoyment at the thought of killing people in Bond's eye. Actually, what makes Daniel Craig perfect for the role, is the perfect poker face. There are several parts of the movie that show how daring and risky the young Bond (his first adventure supposedly) actually is by letting him surprise the audience. Since the main event of the movie revolves around a poker tournament (originally Baccarat in the novel), this makes Daniel Craig an apt and able choice to take on the tux.

In fact, all of the parts are well cast in this movie, with the possible exception of Vesper Lynd. Dame Judy Dench is finally given more room to act and her chemistry with Craig is surprisingly riveting. Le Chiffre, although normally very subdued has an excellent torture scene and is played well by Mads Mikkelsen. (Not to mention that he has a bleeding eyeduct!) The only real casting problem in the movie comes from Vesper Lynd. Oh, I'm not denying Eva Green as a beautiful bond babe. She is one of the more beautiful bond babes I have seen in a while. The problem is that unlike Craig and Dench, Green and Craig seem to have lost that spark in their relationship. (Yes, yes! Cringe!!!) This is especially troubling since much of the script weighs itself upon their ability to convince the audience of the possiblity of Bond falling in love. Craig is a good actor and he holds his own with Dench, so I'm placing the blame on Green. Their just really isn't any chemistry at all! Which makes it especially hard to give a crap when the bond babe dies at the end (Not a spoiler unless you have never seen a Bond film ever). I won't divulge more into this because I don't want to give away the surprise that is in store for the hardcore Bondinians (can i copyright that? no?). Speaking of caring for the characters, now is time to get to roasting some writers sorry asses.

I loved Paul Haggis. Loved him. After Crash the man could do no wrong. Except now, having seen Flags of Our Fathers and Casino Royale...I'm pissed. It's true that he was merely brought on for a rewrite to "touch up" the comedic bits. Well, good luck laughing. There are some truly amusing moments in the film that are portrayed in a dark humor instead of the good natured chummy suave that so many women have dreamed about while asleep next to their husband. This is not what fails, in fact I like the switch from the fluffy comedy to the darker and grittier comedy (has any review of this movie not used the word gritty somewhere yet?) simply because it brings out what I would consider to be the more realistic bond side. Bond was always ten times scarier to me as someone who could pull off a joke and then shoot you in the face while smiling and making the women beside in the theater rip their shirts off and throw them at the screen...okay, maybe my fantasy, but still. The previous incarnations of Bond were definately descendants of the Joker. Anyhow, the problem with the jokes in this film is that they don't work. For the most part they are too unoriginal and have been overdone before. For example, a man mistakes Bond for a valet and tells him to park the car, Bond gets pissed and crashes the man's car on purpose. Add in some canned laughter and voila. Now occassionally Bond delivers some great lines, but they are no where near as good as past films. While I like the change to sardonic dry dark wit, I have to agree with previous reviewers that Haggis was not the man for the rewrites. Even though Haggis let me down, this does not let Neal Purvis nor Robert Wade off the hook.

The real reason this movie fails in my eyes is due to a flagrant disregard for continuity. This is supposed to the first Bond epic right? Well, ok, I can overlook Dench's casting even though she shouldn't be around until the last films. I can even put up with a couple of really bad product placements, but the line "Damn I miss the Cold War" is unacceptable. How the hell does Bond have his first mission in which the Cold War is over and then go back for Her Majesty's Secret Service or From Russia With Love into the Cold War hmm?? Not only that, but the few attempts made at reverting the movie back to what Ian Fleming envisioned as a hardened spy cannot make up for the amount of prop problems. Laptops and cell phones play a prominent role in the first Bond movie and they can't even be mentioned in the early Moore and Connery days. Plus all of the new age stuff doesn't gel with the occassional throwbacks such as the 1964 Astin Martin in the film. (On a sad sidenote, last I heard Astin Martin is being closed down) I see no way that the producers could have been so careless unless either they are restarting the entire Bond franchise, which I hope not since I refuse to watch 20 remakes, or they are lazy sellouts.

This includes Martin Campbell, the director, for letting his film be ruined by corporate advertising. Campbell delivers such a mixed bag of treats and letdowns. The opening chase scene is perhaps the best on foot chase scene ever. Also there are several riveting new-to-Bond film techniques that he employs to draw the audience into Bond's dilemmas at pivotal moments. Yet, for all of the great action, he seems to put only a distant cold face on Bond's romance, which only aggravates the chemistry problem between Craig and Green. Plus, as a director, he had to know that the various product placement wouldn't fit in the timeline of Bond. If nothing else, I blame the continuity problems on the director and producer foremost and on the writers a little. The writers are actualy more guilty of creating a poor plot. The end is hastily wrapped up and if you can explain to me why Vesper has to die, I'm all ears. Honestly, the end comes across as if someone said, "hey! we have 10 pages left, crap!" And the rest was history.

Conclusion

So with all my vitriole and anger excised, what remains? A fairly well done movie. It is heavy on the action and light on the suave romance which will help it to appeal to men mostly. The film's plot is good until the end. And the acting is superb. With that being said, the lack of tons of fun gadgets, John Cleese, and some better romance might deter females. All doom and gloom, then where's the fun? He's friggin 007 people and he kills people, if you don't like it go home. In the end it will be interesting to see what the Broccoli's do next. Will they decide to start making movies of John Gardner's Bond books? Or the more recent writer? Or will they go back to creating their own stories out of the air for Bond now that the Ian Fleming canon is complete. All in all it is an excellent film for a first timer and Craig pulls off daring and risky like never before.
3.75 out of 5

Wannabe