On The "New" Bond

Rating: 8/10 (12 December 2006)

I will make clear at the beginning that this film, while overlong, is IMHO quite a well-made film, well-directed and well-acted, and that I personally find there to be some legitimacy to those who seek to proclaim it the best Bond film ever made. Certainly all those who loudly protested the choice of Daniel Craig in the role of James Bond have now been exposed to the world for their foolishness.
However, I do feel more than a few of those commenting here lack quite a bit of perspective to the evolution of Bond in the popular consciousness over the past half century, which makes some of their pronouncements (most significantly that Craig's performance as Bond is superior to any others') to lack a great deal of credibility.
For starters, it simply cannot be denied that James Bond is one of the great "mythological" creations of that period of history known as the Cold War. Also, that he is a classically British creation of the mid-20th century, and that attempts to translate him into 21st century American terms have always carried with them inherent flaws. In addition, it needs to be restated that when the first Bond films of the '60s arrived, they almost overnight created a whole new genre of film, the "spy film", which had not truly existed beforehand, and which themselves quickly evolved due to the rapid technological advancements of the '60s (most significantly the Space Race) as well as the rapid changes in sexual mores of the time, both of which led to (at the time) unique forays into the fields of science fiction and, well, sex. These should be obvious points, but it is clear that the younger fans on these boards seem to have great difficulty grasping these facts, particularly in terms of properly appreciating the Sean Connery films of the '60s.
My point in all this is that the "newness" of Casino Royale is quite an illusion. This film is actually more faithful to the films of the early '60s than it is groundbreaking in the field of spy films. One need only look at the early Bond films (in particular FROM Russia WITH LOVE) to realize that, 21st century bells and whistles aside, this is pretty much the way CASINO ROYALE would have been filmed if, circumstances permitting, it had been the first Bond movie filmed in 1962. Also, one needs to consider that the accomplishments of the 2006 CASINO ROYALE can be said to be largely made on the backs of the Bond films that came before it -- again, particularly the Connery films of the '60s. I therefore find it rather ignorant to say that this film is more "realistic" than the original Bonds -- a somewhat preposterous statement considering things like the exciting but outrageous foot race in Madagascar that in the end relied more on suspending the laws of probability than any chase or fight in GOLDFINGER.
So to the new fans of Bond, I say, welcome. It is wonderful that you appreciate a Bond film that relies more on character development and honest plot development than any Bond film in the past 35+ years. Now go back and watch the Connery films of the '60s. If you liked this film, you will love the "originals".
And by the way, any of you who think Connery couldn't have handled the level of acting demanded of Craig (which I think he handled quite well) need to see Connery's work in THE HILL. A film he made in 1965, between GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL. That's when you'll realize that, if things had gone differently for the development of the Bond films of the '60s, Connery would have been more than up to the task of creating a "realistic" James Bond.
But then, in the end, there was a reason why they would say, "Sean Connery IS James Bond".