Martin Campbell saves Bond (again)

Rating: 9/10 (12 December 2006)

Things were looking bad for Bond in 2002 when the attempt was made to appear more "now", by embracing the worst pop drivel. Intended as a celebration of the franchise lasting for twenty episodes, instead it drew scorn from long-term fans of the character and apathy from the very generation whatever audience it tried to pander to. So for the next four years, a lot of to and fro went on in public and behind the scenes over what kind of Bond film episode twenty-one would be. Fortunately, the forces of good have won out this time, with GoldenEye director Martin Campbell taking the reins and making his second entry in the five best films to feature Fleming's superspy. Adding to the rebirth quality of Casino Royale is that the powers behind the franchise have decided to go back to the very beginnings of Fleming's saga. In so doing, they discard a lot of the baggage (and hopefully the entirety of Roger Moore's tenure in the role) that the character was starting to groan under the strain of. This is the first Bond film in which an overwhelming majority of the elements are "right".
The bad news first. Casino Royale is a lengthy film, and feels it. While time literally seems to fly during the action sequences, the necessary exposition to give them their oomph slows the film to a crawl. The sequence in which Bond breaks into M's home to look through her computer is probably the only dialogue-heavy sequence in the film that does not feel as dialogue-heavy as it is. This problem was also present in GoldenEye to a degree, with the momentum dying off rapidly whenever Bond took a break from killing things in order to explain what he is doing and why it is so important to the plot. Making matters a little worse in Casino Royale is that the film often jump-cuts ahead in time, and the final three scenes that wrap up the loose ends feel incredibly disjointed. This is the one fault of Casino Royale that gets in the way of its perfection, the editing. However, one cannot blame the editors for wanting to trim the dialogue sequences, either. If it were not for the action sequences, the vitriol that had been aimed at Craig by idiots with nothing better to do would have turned to hatred.
Just as Casino Royale shares a weakness with GoldenEye, it also shares a great strength. The action sequences take Casino Royale to its glory. Daniel Craig looks the part of a soldier trained to kill on the quiet, and he gives a subtle, nuanced performance that screams "take your words, eat them, and die" to those who heaped scorn on him before the final cut of the film was assembled. Not only will you walk out of this film thinking Craig is Bond, his ability to show Bond changing and developing as he learns more of his trade will briefly make you forget anyone else ever played Bond. Even the great Timothy Dalton, who was hampered by some of the worst theme songs ever chosen and one of the worst of the Bond women, is left in the dust by this performance. I am not going to insult your intelligence or the stuntmen by saying Craig looks good leaping from the scaffolds. I will, however, say he is incredibly convincing punching people in the face or throwing them down a flight of stairs.
Since this is essentially a reboot of the franchise, we get to see all the elements that we were saturated in without explanation during the other twenty films. Although they are never mentioned, we get to see the early indications of the existence of SPECTRE. It is also nice to actually see the first of all those women Bond failed to save, or the first of the numerous men he has killed, as alluded to in Campbell's prior effort. It does clash a little with one's memories of the franchise, especially as the film updates the novel's setting to the present time and references contemporary world affairs. It is a bold move that could have backfired in a big way, and the Broccoli estate deserve acknowledgment for having the guts to see it through. The end result is that for the first time since 1989 or 1969, we get to see Ian Fleming's Bond rather than Albert Broccoli's Bond. And as I indicated before, making it all the sweeter is that no other film in the franchise has shown so much of Fleming's Bond.
I just cannot stress what a stroke of luck Casino Royale turned out to be. According to reports, Quentin Tarantino wanted to make the film in 2004 with then-Bond Pierce Brosnan. Brosnan has a right to be angry with the Bond producers, as after the scripts that were quite apparently written by monkeys who had drunk turps for the last three films, the quality of this one must seem like salt in the wound. Tarantino, on the other hand, has been left with egg on his face, as the pseudo-philosophy of his overrated, substance-free posture-fests that he has become famous for will not compare favourably with the down to earth, back to basics approach that we got instead. Possibly for the first time in all of its forty-four years, the Bond franchise has shown the world what the market for action films needs, as opposed to what it needs to avoid. The only sour note, aside from the aforementioned problem with keeping the pace consistent, is that we must keep hoping this level of quality can be maintained for a while. After all, Brosnan's first Bond film was hailed as a new beginning, too.
In all, I gave Casino Royale a nine out of ten. Other studios with franchises can learn from this, as it is what happens when you listen to the more intelligent segment of your core audience.