It's The Next One That Counts!

Rating: 7/10 (13 April 2007)

The philosophy required for new Bond arrivals is "give them a chance", and this is precisely what I did. I saw no purpose in pre-slagging off Daniel Craig for not fulfilling the cyber boys Bondian requirements (despite his being more like the Fleming Bond). However, I don't feel as if Casino Royale will be the film by which Craig will be judged, but the next one that is of paramount importance.
Casino Royale has been given the Batman Begins treatment in terms of reverting back through time to point out the pitfalls and pivotal moments which created the Bond we all grew up knowing. Now, Casino Royale works on the premise that for the past however many years Bond has been in decline. Possibly true. However, that is neglecting Goldeneye (which staved the campness for a gritty story), and possibly the first half of 'Tomorrow Never Dies'. And by neglecting this, we have our problem.
Where do we go from here? If Bond continues on this path, the "old" styled enjoyment will forever be confined to make way for a more self indulgent and seemingly serious series. While possibly not a bad thing unto itself it will only be a matter of time before there is uproar and the whole saga will have to shift once more. However, revert back to the "old" style of Q (or T whichever name John Cleese goes by), and Casino Royale becomes redundant. A self serving exercise which doesn't tie in with the other movies, which has to be frank a somewhat cringe worthy finale.
This isn't to say Casino Royale is a bad movie. Far from it. It is hugely entertaining, and presents itself well and carries a greater deal of plausibility than many other Bonds films. But then does that strip Casino of the Bond essence? Is it merely Bondman Begins? Rhetorical questioning which only everyone as individuals have answers to. Royale is a damned decent action spy fest with a peppering of thriller for good measure, and to be equally frank Craig is not a bad Bond. While some say he may have the visual resemblance to that of Golum, it is irrelevant as he carries off the necessary task of performing Bond for this particular Bond film. But as I have alluded to with this entire review, the direction taken in the next step of the saga will be pivotal as to deciding whether or not Craig is worthy of the mantel. If the affair is another no-nonsense outing then perhaps Craig will slot himself nicely in the #2 spot. Perhaps some viewers will perceive him as being the #1 and credited with reinventing a dieing series and giving it some much needed gravitas. However if the "sequel" proves itself to be too much of an "old" styled Bond film, will Craig be able to cope, and through this that Casino Royales status in modern cinema will either increase or diminish.
Bond has begun, but like the Batman he cannot conquer the world as a mere man. Let us see whether it be gadgetry or gallantry that continue the legend, or whether it be confined to mythical status, having flown too close to the sun.