"But you yourself are nothing so divine. Just next in line "

Rating: 6/10 (20 November 2006)

You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. So, here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film and how the remake of CASINO ROYALE rates on a scale of 1 to 10:
Title: CASINO ROYALE: At least it suggests class, which oddly is the one thing this film seems to be trying to avoid. 7 points.
Pre-Credit Teaser: The first wrinkle in this so-called reboot of the series is that it begins in black-and-white. Whether intended as an homage to the 50s TV version of the story or just a clumsy reference to THE WIZARD OF OZ, the monochromatic flashback is hardly original. Since the whole film is essentially a flashback, the gimmick here seems self-consciously self-important. 5 points.
Opening Credits: Daniel Kleinman foregoes the traditional optical tricks and gaudy montages and actually goes retro with an animated opening. Cleverly using a gambling motif, he turns crosshairs into roulette wheels, spades into lethal weapons and hearts into puddles of blood, equating the spy game with a game of skill and chance. Really nice. 10 points.
Theme Song: Paradoxically it is entitled "You Know My Name," odd since this is supposed to be Bond before he was a legend. Chris Cornell's opening theme provides a strong beat but the lyrics are rambling nonsense ("When the storm arrives, would you be seen with me? By the merciless eyes of deceit?" Huh?). Still, if it were performed in the seductive tones of the best Bond ballads (Shirley Bassey, where are you?), rather than Cornell's blaring screech, it might have been better. 6 point.
"Bond, James Bond": Supposedly the youngest actor to play Bond, Daniel Craig nonetheless looks older than either Connery or Moore in their final Bond epics. There is just something unpleasant about Craig's appearance, which makes his 007 neither likable nor sympathetic nor even particularly memorable. Craig is stiff and cold and prone to mumbling in monotones. Unfortunately, that seems to be just what the filmmakers wanted. Go figure. But, there is the hint that the style, charm and wit will materialize in future adventures. God, I hope so. We'll take a gamble and advance him 4 points.
Bond Babes: As Vesper Lynd, Eva Green certainly isn't the voluptuous temptress that Ursula Andress created in the 1967 spoof, but instead gives us a character who is smart, witty and beautiful in a realistic way. Indeed, she hardly deserves to be classified as a mere "Bond Girl." But, the film traps her in an unbelievable plot twist and an even more unbelievable romance with Bond. But you can't blame Green, she's the best thing about the film. 10 points.
Bond Villain: It would seem the strongest qualification for Mads Mikkelsen being the villainous LeChiffre is that he is even less attractive than Craig. Not that it matters, since the problem is that he does nothing with the character. In fairness, the role was played previously by Peter Lorre (in the 1954 TV play) and Orson Welles (in the 1967 spoof) and they really didn't do much with the character either. But, at least, they were Peter Lorre and Orson Welles. But then, the character is basically an accountant with a gambling problem and that isn't much to build on. Mikkelsen's LeChiffre cries blood and apparently has asthma... and that is about it. 4 points.
Bond Baddies: Thugs and terrorists seem to be around every corner and fights break out at regular intervals, but they all have a generic quality and are totally forgettable. 0 points.
Sinister Plot: LeChiffre is the moneyhandler for the bad guys (this time terrorists rather than the Soviets) and his gambling habit prompts him to foolishly borrow funds from his clients, who aren't happy when he loses big and can't reimburse. Thus he faces off with Bond over the poker table to win enough to cover his debts before he is eliminated. It is a very silly plot and yet possibly a clever metaphor for the way governments gamble and bluff their way through diplomacy. Still, if Bond wants LeChiffre dead, why doesn't he just shoot him? 6 points.
Production values: For all the jabbering about introducing a new sense of realism into the series, the extravagant stunts are just as ridiculous as ever. But removing the humor from the story doesn't make it serious and denying the self-awareness that the humor exists is not realism. Once more we are getting a comic book farce that doesn't have the good grace to be honest about its absurdity. 5 points.
Bonus Points: One of the more annoying features of the last few Bonds has been Judi Dench as "M." Dame Judi opted to play the bureaucrat as stern, petty, condescending and just plain rude, berating James at every turn. And though they have given the boot to "Q" and Moneypenny, they opted to instead reboot Dench's insufferable "M" into a kinder, gentler despot. Her "M" is still a bully, but she seems to have some unexplained respect for the new Bond, even though he is ruthless and at times incompetent. 5 points for giving Dench a more complex role, minus 5 points for the inconsistency.
Summary: I fail to see the point of all the hullabaloo about this being a rebirth of Bond. Take away the five minutes spent on James earning his 007 status and everything else is the same old same old.. With its accent on violence and sadism, the tone is more Tarantino than Playboy, but that is how the series has been evolving -- for worse more than better -- for the last two decades.
Bond-o-meter Rating: 57 points out of 100