The bond screenwriters are back, bold, angry, and... confused

Rating: Null/10 (29 November 2006)

For some of us, waiting for the next Bond film is like a leap year child waiting for their birthday... for others it hardly causes a flutter of interest. Casino Royale will both delight and disappoint the 007-philes, whilst reaffirming the disinterest of the rest of the world. Rather like the patients in "House", each Bond film makes some small improvements, simultaneously developing worrying new problems.
Daniel Craig works really well as Bond. Much closer to the sharpness of Connery, he escapes the leeriness of Brosnan and Moore, is less of a ham than Dalton, and lets not even mention a Lazenby comparison. Craig totally suits the action sequences... but is let down by the scriptwriters in other respects. Taking into account that this is "Bond Begins" - we should expect the gradual creation of 007's character - there is still a noticeable lack of quips, pacey dialogue and villainous banter (surely the villains don't need time to mature?). As my girlfriend commented - they give him lots of opportunity to show off a great body, but rarely any twinkly eyed moments. Craig's Bond may be a diamond in the rough - only time and better screen writing will tell.
The pace of this film is somewhat different - especially for those used to the recent camped-up Brosnan affairs. The action sequences are much more akin to "The Bourne Identity" or "The Transporter" - punchy, adrenalin fuelled, pugilistic ballets in a maelstrom of splinters, bullets and nails. This actually makes a really welcome change from the somewhat surgical gun fights of previous films. So top marks for well structured - if not totally original - scenes here.
The surrounding film - particularly (and most disappointingly) the last 30-40 minutes - is a somewhat different kettle of Walther PPKs. Again we have Judi Dench's maternal M (whatever was wrong with the cold-hearted, gruff old male M - never felt the need to bring emotion into it, and thus was infinitely better at being amusing when cuffing Bond round the lug'ole). We lose Q - although John Cleese is so patently not the right person to play him that this isn't any real sacrifice. We gain characters who are a strange cross between the cast of Alias and Austin Powers. But worst the scriptwriters appear to have a sub-GCSE level of ability to handle Bond's emotional journey to becoming 007. Compared with say "Batman Begins" (where, although not a fantastic film, the emotional journey was still pacey enough to keep the momentum of the film going), "Casino Royale" labours to make its point. Daniel Craig is a fantastic actor, and could probably speak volumes in a single glance. Instead we have to wallow through minutes of footage (so typical in Hollywood) designed to hold the audiences hand, and point out the emotional reasons for the final events. This is so painful that towards the end there is almost a "Captain Scarlett"like moral moment over the phone with M. It's here (and the real lack of humour) where "Casino Royale" is let down. Of course, for anyone with a modern, internet-length concentration span, none of this will be a problem, as there is generally a fight sequence every 10 or 15 minutes. But for those who like films to at least attempt to be well-crafted, it's a bit of a disappointment, even without the watch-checking moments.
So overall: by no means the worst attempt at Bond; some cracking good stuff; and a dire need to find someone who can make a script hang together.