007 is Back in Town but Bourne remains Supreme

Rating: 5/10 (15 February 2007)

Casino Royale is the eagerly anticipated resurrection of the James Bond franchise. Besides the generational change in lead character we also witness a very different style and attitude to previous bond movies that appears to be in response to the success of the Bourne Identity action spy franchise. The similarities are often so similar that it appears that Casino Royale is paying homage to Bourne and its raw realism than one of the oldest and most successful franchises in movie history. This appears to be the film's downfall. Bourne Identity breathed life into to the spy action movie genre by substituting over the top cartoon action with brutal realism and subtle emotion. Matt Damon and the new movie franchise were so successful in achieving this that many questioned the appropriateness of a larger than life chauvinistic Bond in the 21st century (an American spy now also managed to look more cool than the legendary British agent). This argument was not hard to make when the instantly forgettable recent bond movies with Pierce Brosnan (excluding Golden Eye) were so dismal (I don't thing Brosnan was bad but the material was awful). In any case Bond desperately needed to see change and it appears that they have borrowed heavily from Bourne to achieve this. Whilst the action and fight sequences are impressive they still fail to improve on what is achieved in the Bourne franchise. However, Bond is not Bourne and there are many ingredients that go into a bond movie. Whilst Casino Royale is taking a fresh approach to the franchise one would still expect it to pay homage to its predecessors and possibly offer a fresh approach on these ingredients. Firstly lets take the characteristic car chase sequence. What is on offer in Casino Royale? A beautiful Aston Martin that is driven for less than a minute in the dark and then crashes, OK that's nice. Gadgets? A resuscitation machine, OK... Theme tune? Some random melody with no chorus or tie in with the movie that will no doubt go down as one of the worst bond themes in history. Bond Villains with a master plan? Some random financiers who seemed like fairly decent blokes... etc etc Bond needed to evolve but this appears to be a derivative of its modern day replacement. Daniel Craig is good, there are some good action sequences and the style of the movie works well (ultimately the hardest thing to achieve given the legacy of the past). Whilst the movie abandons many ingredients of the past, this could be forgiven if one left the cinema enthralled but Casino Royale is unable to achieve this. The pace of the movie is very slow in places and you really feel it, consequently the long running time is more of an ordeal than value for money. The relationship Bond has with the lead female exhibits some of the most slow paced scenes (alongside the Casino games) and whilst the twists and turns are interesting they don't seem to work very well and are a little confused. The final 30 minutes of the movie is a let down and a far cry from the grand finale's of past bond movies (or any action movie really) Casino Royale is not a bad movie but does not really offer the viewer a fast paced action thriller, any real plot development or any real emotional depth (arguably a necessary substitute for the elimination of traditional bond ingredients). It does however offer a very different style to its predecessors and a strong lead character that has consequently generated huge interest in the new franchise. So whilst Bourne may remain supreme, he may have to watch his back in the future.