James Bond begins

Rating: 6/10 (7 December 2006)

Last time we saw James Bond, he was trying to make his way through North Corea's jails, with the little help of Q's gadgets, non-stop explosions, and spectacular special effects... He should have died that day. And he did. At least, that the impression that wants to give us the new Bond movie : no more invisible cars and other improbable gadgets, nor weak and fantasist scenarii, which are only a pretext for a succession of big action scenes and tiny bikinis. Instead, Casino Royale introduces a violent and realistic tone in the franchise, and shows that efforts were made on the script, where the culminated points are a tense poker game and a tragic love story, and, as the producers claim, the movie gives a meaner James Bond to meaner times. In that part, Daniel Craig is excellent, impersonating an imperturbable cold heart killer with sharp eyes, and is perfect as the new face of James Bond.
This changings are not very surprising : James Bond's franchise never greatly dealt with continuity (different actors for the same characters, who seem to forget every other episodes as soon as a new one begins...), and he never really started (for he's more a symbol than a man with a story : as well as M or Q, 007 is an immortal icon who has always been what he is). With a new actor coming and in search of something new to tell, the idea of a relaunch was an evidence: new face, new tone, new origins and new continuity for James Bond: it all starts with James Bond 21.
The good point is that it works : James Bond's character has at last a story, which can be dated, the events in this episode will hopefully have consequences on the other ones and we may have the opportunity to fallow a real progression in Bond's personality with Daniel Craig. The weak point is that it's still a James Bond movie, and that's bad for two reason. First of all, every James Bond film has to content an incredible, spectacular and "bigger than life" action scene in it. In Casino Royale, this scene is in the very beginning of the movie, it's a (too) long and incredible course-pursuit where Bond destroys everything chasing a man, who seems to have super agility powers. This scene reminds you that you're watching a James Bond, and wants to impress you with a demonstration of its massive budget. But the thing is that if this could work in the previous adventures of 007, which were all in exaggeration, it doesn't fit in a movie which claims to be realistic and credible in terms of action. And this contrast between the will to impress with pyrotechnic and the concern with realistic tones doesn't work and make this movie sometimes looks ridiculous. You'll never experience this kind of scene in realistic features like 24, for instance.
And that's the second weak point of the movie : instead of being inventive and original, the new James Bond, as usual, just fallow the atmosphere of its time. The last ones tried to concurrence movies like XXX or M:I:2 (which, by the way, copy themselves the previous Bond's), and now, Casino Royale only fallow realistic TV show like 24. The meaner James Bond looks a lot like a meaner Jack Bauer, and the meaner times look a lot like the real time of 24. And, because of the ridiculous action scenes, and the "too much" style which defines all Bond movies, Casino Royale doesn't archive to be as good as 24.
Therefore, if some efforts are indisputably made to improve the franchise and if Casino Royale is far from being a bad movie, the James Bond's franchise stays conventional, unoriginal, impersonal and, most of all, weaker than a TV show like 24. But, there's also no doubt that Casino Royale is the best thing that happened to Bond in years and that he's on a new and interesting track with Daniel Craig's run.