Commentary on the movie related to the book

Rating: 9/10 (23 November 2006)

Casino Royale with Daniel Craig is good, but probably something different than you would expect. As you might know the events happen supposedly before any other Bond movie  it is about making of 007.
Below is a commentary on the 21st Bond movie as seen by on who has read the Ian Fleming's book Casino Royale.
First of all, Casino Royale movie tries to be true to the Fleming's book, which is first published in 1953. Those were the days of two super powers fighting for dominance after World War II. Movie comes out in 2006. Oops, times have changed. And so has Bond. Cold war is gone and Russians are no longer the bad guys.
Thus the script writers of movie faced a problem (#1). In the book there is Soviet secret service which takes care of traitors of the communist cause. There is no longer SMERSH (Smert' Shpionam, death to spies). The bad guy has to have problems in our time, to be as true as possible to the book, and still sound as convincing as you can in a Bond movie. Le Chiffre does business with third world warlords and other criminals by handling their money transactions. Good enough for this millennium, albeit a bit lamer than using nukes or destroying mankind. Then we bring up the money problems  as in book  with new means: failure in stock market. And BANG! The bad guy is $110,000,000 short on his account. And his African partners do not like it. Solution: get the money back by gambling  the classic "fast money".
In fifties they gambled a bit different games than today. Problem #2. Who the hell knows what Baccarat is? That's the game where Le Chiffre excelled in the book. Solution: modernize the scene. Today it's Texas Hold'em poker  no-limits of course. Still the movie manages to salvage the book's idea here. Bond loses at first and then gets money from CIA to continue gambling  and wins. And in -53 Felix Leiter was definitely not a black brother. Now he is, since we need a good black guy. The Africans were already evil.
Bringing in Leiter works better than bringing in Rene Mathis, a French agent. Problem #3. What the hell is a French agent doing in Montenegro? 50s are gone. Who gives a damn about deuxime bureau? Ah, they never tell in the movie that he is a French, he just speaks a French sounding bad English? Problem partially solved. Otherwise the names are true to the book. Vesper Lynd is classically beautiful dark haired British girl, who thinks Bond is a cold-hearted man. Oh, in the movie they say she had Algerian boyfriend, which brigs up a problem.
Vesper's boyfriend was Polish. Problem #4: geography is different than in the book. Western French coast and its holiday retreats aren't that sexy in 2006. They probably sounded hot in 50s. Think of some tropical island like Aruba, where they actually have big gambling going on. But no they decide to locate Casino Royale to Montenegro. Probably semi-politically correct. And the bad guy there is Le Chiffre  man without a country. Let's not hurt the feelings of USA's allies. And Iraq would just not do as a place for high stakes poker, but ancient castle in Eastern Europe is nice. But not Poland. It's too nice country to be framed, since it is in NATO. Let's just blame the Algerians. Couple of other places is also introduced outside the book.
Problem #5. The book is just too short for movie of 2 hours 37 minutes. Thus we need the additional places and events that bring in the extra traveling that is expected of Bond films, plus they add to the narrative where the character of Bond is created. Film is here different than books. Remember that they have to describe also in movie how Bond became 007, and how he dedicated his heart to the Queen and the country.
Became 007?! Is this not the 21st Bond film? Sure, but the events take presumably place before Dr. No, where Bond has already set his mind to the business. Problem #6: the movie does not make too good job at showing the birth of 007 as we know. It just lacks some details, like Bond's talks with Mathis that are in the book and Vesper's suicide. The latter had to be taken away because there was need for the big bad guy to sum up the movie. Remember that there is no SMERSH. Mr. White's greed for $115,000,000 comes to replace it. Not that anyone explains in the movie who he was. Anyway. Vesper's death and deceit makes Bond realize the evils of the world that he sets out to straighten. But not in the movie. There is no inner talk of Mr. Bond, fighting his own battle of what is right and wrong, good and evil. He just goes and gets the money from Mr. White (who is lot lamer than SMERSH's spies).
After six problems we get to 007: Daniel Craig. Many people might see him as a problem #7. Not as handsome as Sean Connery, not as funny as Roger Moore. Probably as dull as Timothy Dalton, and not as some-of-the-all-previous as Pierce Brosnan. Maybe people would like to see Mr. Blond as the next George Lazenby. Hopefully not. Craig did good job portraying the character that Bond is in Casino Royale book. He is more the Bond that Fleming describes. And so is Eva Green as Vespe. Not the exact stereotype of Ursula Andress rising up from Caribbean ocean in tiny bikini. Craig does good job  even he has blue eyes.
Overall this Bond is one of the more realistic Bond films. Is it good or bad? I think it is good, while different. And also therefore good.