Intriguing in places and better than any other recent Bond film, but still predictable in places and overrated to boot

Rating: 7/10 (19 June 2007)

I had originally wanted to see Casino Royale at the cinema, when it first came out. However, the screening was delayed, so my friend and I had to see another movie instead. 5 months later, I finally saw Casino Royale. I dropped what I was doing and went to see it in high hopes. I have heard repeatedly that it is one of the best Bond films ever. It is better than any Bond film made since 1995, but I still found it to be overrated. Sure, it was intriguing in places and had its fair share of action. However, it also dragged in the middle like other recent Bond films and had some predictable plot twists which seem to have been borrowed from The World Is Not Enough (like the traitorous female ally). The ending, while admirable in that it wasn't a clichéd 'happy ending', seemed anti-climatic. The acting was, on the whole, pretty good, improving on past Bond films.
I may as well start by detailing the plot. We start off with a scene where Bond suddenly shoots a man. For some strange reason, the scene made me laugh. We quickly cross to some African country, where Bond gets himself in a bit of bother for blowing up an embassy and killing an unarmed hostage. This is where most of the action ends. Up to this point, I thought that Casino Royale could've gone anywhere. It had such potential.
However, in the middle, it really dragged and mostly revolved around several card showdowns between Bond and Le Chiffre, a businessman with some dubious ties. I suppose many people found this to be intriguing. I did too, initially, because it is such a novel feature in a Bond film, but the whole premise outstayed its welcome, so to speak.
Already, I can see a correlation between Casino Royale and past Bond films, despite Casino Royale's relative superiority. For instance, we have an exciting beginning, a relatively dull middle and a quick-fire ending, just to keep the audience happy. If you notice, this plot structure has been closely adhered to by every Bond film since Goldeneye in 1995. The film, however, which interpreted this plot structure most literally, would have to be The World Is Not Enough. The beginning of that movie was spectacular, yet the middle dragged for long periods, before picking up towards the end. I'm not saying that following this structure is necessarily bad. I just think it's a shame that Casino Royale would borrow elements from inferior films.
But perhaps I'm being unfair. Despite the fact that the middle is bloated, it is still less boring than those of the aforementioned films, as it does have a few deliciously scattered moments of real action (like when Bond strangles that black guy to death).
However, this is ruined somewhat by the predictable plot twists which arise as the film nears the end. For instance, we learn that Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) is a traitor. I could also sense that Bond's sidekick, Vesper (Eva Green), was out to betray him ten minutes before the event actually occurred. Like the plot structure, these twists also seem to be derivative of other recent (and inferior) Bond films, making their exclusion in this movie seem unnecessary.
I'm also leaning towards the conclusion that the ending wasn't that great. Casino Royale does its utmost to disassociate itself from the other, more inferior Bond films of late by having the film end abruptly with Bond standing over his ultimate nemesis after losing his female sidekick. This is a definite diversion from the clichéd Bond ending, which as far as I can recall involves Bond and his female sidekick revelling in their victory over an adversary. This may be seen as a positive. Despite this, however, the ending, as aforementioned above, seemed to be anti-climatic and left me feeling utterly bewildered, uncertain of what to think.
The aspect of Casino Royale that definitely lifts this film above any other Bond film would be the acting. The acting in the more recent Bond films has been anywhere from good to decidedly substandard. In Casino Royale, every actor of note delivers turns, which are, at the very least, acceptable. With this in mind, I have to say that Judi Dench does play M a little too much like a stereotypical boss. However, she is not particularly irritating, so I'll let that pass. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, reinvents Bond completely and does it successfully. I find it amusing that he was initially christened 'James Bland' by the British tabloids. Admittedly, there are moments when he comes across as a little too colourless (for instance, the beginning), but these are few. For the most part, he is so cold and calculating as to be almost frightening, as opposed to the suave Bronson-type Bond. Mads Mikkelsen turns in a competent performance as Le Chiffre, with his stereotypical 'ice king' villain approach being somewhat effective most of the time. Giannini and Green are also respectable.
In the end, Casino Royale is the best Bond film in recent memory. However, it is not as good as the majority make it out to be. It is indeed, quite interesting and the acting is quite good, but its adherence to the bloated and uneven 'Bond plot structure', along with some predictable plot twists, detract from its appeal and leads to Casino Royale being somewhat overrated. Nevertheless, it is still an above-average film, so I award it:
3.5/5 stars
EDIT (10/6/09): Actually, the ending makes a lot more sense once you watch Quantum of Solace. So consider this movie to be close to a 4-star rating (even though it still isn't quite there, IMO). My opinion of The World is Not Enough has also been heightened.
EDIT (21/11/18): Some minor edits to better reflect my current opinion of prior Bond films.