Fine movie, yet not daring enough

Rating: Null/10 (30 November 2006)

Yes, "Casino Royale" is a most enjoyable film, its star delivers a very fine performance as 007, it mostly follows the traditional James Bond movie recipe for success, its cinematography and editing are (as usual) flawless, and even though the movie is rather long, it has a very good build-up of tension, so you're amazed to realize two and a half hours have passed when the end credits appear.
However, there are two things which I feel obliged to criticize (of course reflecting my personal views, nothing else): Firstly, what bothered me most about the movie was the fact that it related to James Bond's beginnings (thus paying a tribute to Ian Fleming's first novel), yet it was set in 2006. Of course, this is highly illogical, even if the retro-look of the film's beginning (black and white, with the gun barrel sequence only appearing at the end of the pre-credits sequence - quite unusual, in fact!) implies that the character of James Bond is still a young beginner.
It would have been much more interesting to have "Casino Royale" take place in, say, 1958 or what-have-you, but anyway prior to the first James Bond film "Doctor No" (1962), thus making it the story of young James Bond (magnificently portrayed by Daniel Craig) winning his spurs. This would have turned "Casino Royale" into a kind of costume film: Wouldn't this have been a much more daring, yet fascinating approach?
Instead, we are presented the whole load of - (in 2006) unfortunately inevitable, yet incredibly dull - techno-mumbo-jumbo with people tracking others down due to cell phones or being logged into databases via laptops. I think that technical stuff gets rather boring in the long run. Moreover, it adds nothing to the story. The real highlights of the movie are those Fleming wrote back in 1953: a thrilling casino sequence with plenty of psychology, a fiendish torture scene, a female companion who turns out to be a traitor. These are the basic ingredients of the story, let's face it, the rest is rather dispensable.
Second critizism: I am not particularly enthusiastic about David Arnold's score (and that includes the incredibly dull title song, too). I think this movie should have had a subtle score comparable to John Barry's substantial "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" soundtrack music (1969). As always, Arnold tries to copy Barry's style (and to some extent, successfully, especially in action scenes) but unfortunately he does not come up with melodic material comparable to any of John Barry's.
If you listen to the music, it mostly leaves a frantic impression, with some fairly uninteresting and rather indistinguishable softer moments in between. Hardly ever is there any melodic strain which I would really consider worthwhile remembering; nothing even remotely comparable to, say, Barry's "We have all the time in the world". Incidentally, the best part of the "Casino Royale" score isn't even originally by Arnold - it's his end title arrangement of Monty Norman's James Bond Theme.