A Decidedly Different Bond

Rating: 10/10 (21 December 2006)

One thing is certain: this is a damn good film. The black and white opening scene had me hooked from the start. One things that sticks out for me as being brilliant is the gun-barrel shot, which was done in a surprisingly original manner. Although I liked the movie from the beginning, I hadn't quite warmed up to Daniel Craig as Bond just yet. But any doubts I had were eliminated by that fantastic shot and made me see that he really IS pulling himself off as the famous James Bond. Watch it, even if only for the fantastic opening sequence and to see the way they've done that amazing gun-barrel shot!
The cinematography in this film is beyond belief. It shows beauty and danger, two key elements of a Bond film. There is one scene which, alone, should earn cinematographer Phil Meheux an Academy Award. Not a nomination, a win. To give you an idea of how good it is: the entire theater was gasping for air, myself included. We all seemed to feel as though we were up there with Bond on a narrow pole, thousands of feet up in the air with nothing to support us, nothing to break the fall, just sparkling blue water- which, on impact from that height, would feel more like cement than H20. I once worked in the Sky Tower, the tallest building in the Southern Hemisphere. I worked at the highest part, and I never once felt afraid when I looked down. But, let me tell you, looking up at that movie screen during that scene, I- and the everyone else in that theater- was afraid! I've never felt like that while watching a movie, and that's saying something. My friend and I are both film students, and even we were impressed. We're at the point in our studies where we have been somewhat "desensitized" towards special effects and fancy camera work, but, honest to God, both of us had our mouths open. If you want to see amazing cinematography- WATCH THIS FILM.
Casino Royale is different to the Bond films most people know and love, and a lot has to do with the surprisingly good Daniel Craig. Daniel Craig is Bond the man, not yet Bond the legend. He gives the character an element of humanity without being overbearing. From his portrayal we see Bond as he is, stripped down to his bare nature. He's sharp as a razor, deadly accurate in (almost) everything he does, and stubborn. But it's his arrogance that is the key element of his nature. He is sure of himself and everything that he does, to a fault. Thankfully, there is non of that "hidden, soft center" stuff that a lot of film makers try to use in order to add depth to a male character. Had they toyed with the essence of his character, they would have ended up with a catastrophic mess and even more furor than that initially caused by the surprising casting decision. Try as you might to figure Bond out, you'll only find that what you see is what you get: this, particularly, is what I have always loved about him.
Even if you haven't seen Casino Royale, you are likely to have noticed the furor that developed around the decision to cast an actor that was A)blond, B)relatively unknown, and C)definitely not the ideal Bond type. He's not the mockingly charming Roger Moore, and he most certainly is not the suave, handsome Pierce Brosnan. But thank God they didn't make the same mistake as they did in casting the even less known, less charming, and less British George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
The absence of Bond's promiscuity is actually an inspired choice because it makes the character more "real". People complain of Bond's unrealistic ability to bed various women (sometimes all at once) and still get the job done. Here they get their wish: Bond is at the beginning of his legendary career, still more "real man" than hero, focusing more on work than on play.
The film's only shortcomings are, ironically, the similarities it shares with the doomed On Her Majesty's Secret Service. At 144 minutes, the exceedingly long running time beat OHMSS' record for the longest running Bond film by about 4 minutes. I enjoyed the film, but during the last half hour I thought that the film was about to end 4 times before it finally did. Bond's relationship with Vesper Lind, like his relationship with Tracy Di Vincenzo in OHMSS had the potential to be a real mood killer. There is a painfully noticeable lack of cool gadgets. Call me shallow, but millions of fans will agree that the gadgets are a significant part of the Bond experience. And last, but not least, the lack of exceedingly beautiful women. Bond Girls have taken many a breath away, but Diana Rigg (OHMSS), Eva Green and Caterina Murino (from Casino Royale) are rather average when compared to the likes of Barbara Bach,Maud Adams, Lois Chiles, and Carole Bouquet. The women in Casino Royal look pretty good, but not exactly breath-taking.Diana Rigg is cool, but no amazing beauty. Eva Green just looks like an average-looking girl with A LOT of make up on (which is what she is, really). And even with all the make up, she only manages to look "good".
Despite it's shortcomings, I must conclude that Casino Royale is an excellent film and definitely a must-see. What makes it stands out for me is, even with the absence of some of the most well-known elements of a Bond Film, this movie still took my breath away. Had it not been the latest addition to the Bond series, it still would have earned a 10/10 as a stand alone film. And that's what I'm giving it: 10/10! The question remains: what will they do next with Daniel Craig as James Bond? I can't wait to find out!