Cynical story with a poor plot

Rating: 4/10 (27 December 2006)

I didn't like this film. I think the marketing department have done a wonderful job promoting this movie, but that doesn't make this a good film. Firstly: the script is lame, an anti-climax to say to least. The viewer is left with dissatisfaction. Bond doesn't meet his enemy in the final battle, someone else does the dirty job for him (!). In this way Bond is castrated, left unsatisfied (with the viewer). The end is all too depressing, not because of the story, but because it's bad screen writing. It's more like a very long TV-series episode, but it doesn't work well as an independent feature film, with a beginning, middle and the ending. It limps.
I suppose the meaning with all this violence, betrayal and nihilism in the movie was to explain Bond as person, why he has become that what he is. The problem of course is, that there already is about 20 Bond films that have shaped the Bond archetype, the ideal Bond that we all know and love. A heroic figure, who never loses his cool. A British gentleman. In "Casino Royale" however, our Bond is a temperamental hot blooded thug, who goes after the bad guy to stab him with a knife, just because he got humiliated at the poker table??? I highly suspect that this psycho would have passed the British Secret service psych-tests, no no no...
The plot has lot of other stupidities and silliness. The actions and appearance of those Uganda soldiers to collect their money from the main villain, Le Chiffre, was unnecessary. It came just too rapidly, out of nowhere, and was useless to the plot basically. There was no need to emphasize the villain's greed for money, it's taken for granted. Also when they tried to kill Bond in the hotel, it's not really believable. Professional soldiers wouldn't mess like that and attract unnecessary attention to themselves. It was just for bang bang action I guess, to write them stupid. The poisoning scene and how to survive out of it was just plain ridiculous.
Another stupid question is, how come Bond didn't suspect the Vesper Lynd character when she "somehow" managed to survive from the torture chamber? The end of the movie is down right depressing, nihilism at it's worst. Well, maybe it explains our main character and his motives in the future: A misogynist killer, who has a license to kill and doesn't trust nobody
Just to be fair, there was few scenes where it looked promising. The action sequence in the beginning was good, as always. Superb action very well done and choreographed. Few scenes with Vesper Lynd and Bond flirting also had a classy quality, which reminded me of the old Bond charm.
I suppose the writers had a task to update Bond to this day, but I'm not sure if this is the right way. "More realistic" is what many have said about Casino Royale, what ever that means. Sure, Bond is now more cynical and more full of hate than ever, so if it reflects the values of world today, maybe it is "realistic" then.