What hand will 007 x 21 give you?

Rating: 7/10 (16 November 2006)

The twenty-first (21!) James Bond flick is expertly directed, well acted, beautifully photographed. It is solid entertainment. So why only seven stars? Because it is entertainment and no more. Before hurling words such as "snob" and "curmudgeon" at me, consider that it's entirely possibly - and highly desirable - for food (and movies) to be both tasty and nutritious. "Casino Royale" is excellent, glorious... popcorn.
The reason to bring this up right at the top is that "Casino Royale" hints at substance, of character development, of depth - but it doesn't deliver. The new Bond, Daniel Craig, is more complex than most of the macho cardboard figures of the past. He has some "issues," some vulnerabilities, and he falls in love the way no flashy establishment killer should. (Speaking of killers, British intelligence is using the new film for recruiting, while denying that agents, of any rank, have a "license to kill.") Twenty-one in the series of films is not the only impressive figure. It's been a half a century-plus since Ian Fleming wrote "Casino Royale," his first James Bond novel, and 40 years since the appearance of the first film version. You know when a series has "legs" when you start repeating titles.
Four decades is a long time. With a changing world, there is a different script, involving - of course - terrorists. And those who finance them. You finance terrorists by selling weapons of mass destruction, or, once Bond catches you or blows up your weapons, by playing Texas Holdem at the Casino Royale. (Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are responsible for the screenplay.) Martin Campbell (of two Zorro movies and of "Vertical Limit") directed "Casino Royale" smoothly and expertly, but unable to overcome instances of banality in the script. Campbell is also perhaps partially responsible (along with producers) for the 144-minute length of the film, which you may regard as "getting your money's worth" or as excessive, resulting in bang-bang scenes that go on and on.
The women of the new Bond are less pulchritudinous than the model/bunnies of the past, and have more soul... up to a point. Eva Green, Caterina Murino, and Ivana Milicevic are entertaining and forgettable, even as the film itself is. The great Judi Dench, as M, is great indeed, presenting a memorable character with marvelous economy. Giancarlo Giannini, as Mathis, is a class act, as always. The new super-villain is a Danish actor, Mads Mikkelsen, playing Le Chiffre. He is scary enough, especially when - rather routinely - a smidgen of blood is discharged from his eye for no discernible reason.
Bond's Aston Martin has fewer visible gadgets than those of the old times, but its glove compartment is conveniently furnished with a defibrillator. Just as there is an invariable rule in the theater that if you show a gun in act one, somebody will be shot in act two, if there is a defibrillator in your glove compartment, somebody's heart is going to stop (temporarily, one hopes). However, there will be no spoiler here about the identity of the victim or the outcome of the medical procedure. If there is one thing you don't want to do with a James Bond movie is tell who wins in the end.