Daniel Craig And Martin Campbell Reinvent Bond In Surprising Fashion

Rating: 10/10 (17 November 2006)

I would just like to say that I am a HUGE Bond fan. I have pretty much seen every single Bond film ever (except for the old "Casino Royale"s) and have been following the character for quite some time now. I'm going to say it up-front despite the fact that I will be placed in the minority: I thought Daniel Craig was a phenomenal choice from the start. Although I had never seen any of his work prior to his being dubbed "007," the one screenshot of him pointing the gun sold me immediately. And did he live up to that? Did director Martin Campbell, who blew all of us with away with 1995's spectacular "Goldeneye" deliver the goods? For the most part, yes, and I'm very content with the film I just saw.
"Casino Royale" (recieving it's first official treatment after two terrible ones), revolves around the newly-instantiated MI6 Agent 007 aka James Bond's first real mission: to play cards. Sound exciting? Backed by the Treasury Department of Britain, Bond must go head-to-head with Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorist organizations, in order to prevent him from winning back the money Le Chiffre lost in a bad investment (due to Bond's intervention). The plan is that without the money, Le Chiffre will be killed by his employers or he'll seek refuge with MI6 (the preferred solution, as M states). However, knowing how reckless our now-young 007 is, M assigns Vesper Lynd, who represents the interests of the Treasury Department, to keep an eye on Bond. Feelings grow, bullets fly, and it all comes to a breathtaking climax. Or two. Maybe even three.
See, that's one of the problems with the film. It has too many climaxes and too many plot lines. The only ways I knew the film wouldn't be over for a while were because I knew the running length and because I knew there was stuff in the trailers I hadn't seen on-screen yet. The film starts off a little slow, and, in retrospect, seems almost unattached to the rest of the film (it actually is, but whatever...). The middle of the film is what's really worth the price of admission. The centerpiece card game, the interaction between Bond and Vesper, and the painful (for men) torture sequence make up the meat of Bond's character development and is really what we came to see.
Because there's a book, I'm going to talk about the "ending." Le Chiffre's death is unforgivably anticlimactic. At first, I wasn't sure if it was really him that died, but when it was confirmed, I was disappointed. The third act is also weak, as the film spends too much time on Bond and Vesper making love instead of what's really important ("Bad" girl...). The ending also suggests a possible sequel, a notion I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with.
Plot holes? Not as many as some other outings, but they're there. Did Solange just let Bond chase her husband to Miami International Airport? Why would Le Chiffre hate Bond for killing the men who want their money back? How can Bond get poisoned, have cardiac arrest, faint, and then change his shirt and be ready for a next hand of cards in a matter of minutes? When did Bond and Vesper get to Venice? How can Bond survive after his Aston Martin gets totaled in a stunt like that (that was more painful for me to watch than the torture scene). And was it really necessary to torture Bond nude?
The performances? Rather, the performance we actually care about? Craig is phenomenal. He's icy cold when he needs to be and hysterical at other times. He's arguably the first Bond who's ever had to portray a wide range of emotions in a single film, and he pulls it off surprisingly well. Eva Green is fine, Mads Mikkelsen is good in his short amount of screen-time. Judi Dench has some funny lines. John Cleese is sorely missed.
Overall, its a fairly good film. Martin Campbell knows what he's doing, Daniel Craig is so close to being as good as Connery, and the title sequence is the best I've ever seen. However, the film's plot has some holes, the editor could have definitely done a better job, and the film could have been a bit more focused (the film's best action sequence, the free-running, has almost nothing to do with the rest of the film). Overall, its worth the price of admission, but don't expect a masterpiece. Maybe it'll require multiple viewings, or maybe I'm just not used to a Bond that's more like Jason Bourne. Whatever it is, it's close, but no cigar.
Rating: ***
P.S. For all of you who doubt the validity of the free-running sequence, the man that Bond is chasing is the inventor of the now extreme-sport, Sebastian Foucan. So, basically, its all for real, and that makes it that much more enjoyable. Also, look out for nifty product-placement from Ford and Sony (007's new distributor) as well as a cameo by Virgin Mobile's Sir Richard Branson.