Better than expected

Rating: 5/10 (24 April 2007)

When the news broke, that Pierce Brosnan was replaced by Daniel Craig, I was upset. Really, really upset. The good news is though: The movie isn't half bad. It's actually quite enjoyable, apart from a couple of times, I had to flinch, because I was reminded, that this is actually a so-called "James Bond" movie.
Even if Judi Dench as 'M' is in it, even if they set new world records in product placement, don't believe what they tell you: It's not a Bond movie. It's a very well made action movie, but that's about it. If this movie was 20 years earlier, it would have flopped. Period.
There's a huge debate, whether this movie is Fleming-like or not, especially when it comes to Bond falling in love. I read the novel, and I have to admit, IMO it has been adapted for the big screen quite well. Besides, there is more than just this one occasion, where Bond actually does fall in love. Furthermore, except for "From Russia With Love" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", the movies have little to do with the novels anyway. Using Poker instead of Baccara is a minor detail, that can easily be ignored. There was also some criticism towards the music and the lack of the James Bond theme. In my opinion, the soundtrack works quite well, and it has enough "bondian" elements. It's much better than the over-usage of the Bond-Theme like in Dr. No. And while I prefer the soundtracks of John Barry, David Arnold's music definitely comes second. Personally, I think the title song with a male voice was somewhat of a refreshing change - the best since GoldenEye. Especially after the disastrous "Die Another Day" (I was initially excited, when I heard Madonna was going to perform it, but it turned out to be a major disappointment. IMO, worst song of the whole series). So, all that wasn't an issue for me not to enjoy "Casino Royale" entirely. I just watched a couple of old Bond movies again, when it hit me, what went wrong for me:

Daniel Craig is a great actor, with a great physique and absolute believability when it comes to actually kill someone. But: He's no womanizer. When he hit on Solange, I thought "Yeah, right, you would definitely score in real life". He's neither debonair nor suave. He lacks of the wittiness and tongue-in-cheek, that Roger Moore had too much of. I actually wonder, why this film worked, while "Licence to Kill" didn't. It's even more serious and just as brutal.

Almost no humor whatsoever: Craig appears so humorless, he could be from the German BND rather than the British MI6. In fact, the only British thing is his accent. Moreover, he actually doesn't say so much. But for this the scriptwriters are probably to blame.

While the producers claimed, they wanted to reduce the gadgets, they were right. But, I couldn't help myself thinking "Enough already with those damn mobile phones".

The movie sports a huge anti-climax after Bond's torture scene. It's simply too slowly paced.

English is not my native language, but I always prefer to watch movies in their original rather than the dubbed version. While every other Bond actor had a very defined pronunciation (yes, even Connery), I have to admit, that Craig mumbles at times. Of course, this isn't a big issue for native English speakers.

Bottom-line is, someone like Clive Owen would have been great, but I guess that's out of the window. But, I was able to live with an actor, that fitted to the role as Bond, but was so unfortunate to have to appear in poorly-written movies; I will be able to cope with Daniel Craig, if the scripts are good. But please, bring back Q and Moneypenny, and also a little bit of the humor.