Mainly for Flemingists

Rating: 6/10 (7 December 2006)

Since the punishment is blacklisting, I'm pointing out that this review have MINOR spoilers that I wouldn't say spoil anything.
I have been concerned for a little less than a year over the idea of creating a canon 007-prequel with the intent to close the series in favor of a "new". Being a Bond fan, and feeling that the 007 movie franchise is nothing short of a unique piece of cinema history it seems like an unnecessary move.
Me and my partner did exit the theatre, saying in unison: "Well it wasn't a BOND movie". Having not read the book, and always thanking Cubby rather than Fleming when it comes to Bond anyway, I couldn't argue with purist 007-fans saying that this is the greatest Bond film since the 60's. These were the same people who thought Timothy Dalton did a great, genuine Bond. Nothing wrong with that, but they are simply not playing on my field. On my field, Bond DOES care about his Martinis and without an invisible car or two it just wouldn't be a satisfying day at the office.
Just to make certain it's clear, it was NOT a bad film. Not in any way is this a weak and uninspired film. It is a rough-edged and gritty spy action film, powerful and intelligent with strong characters and surprises at every turn. Daniel Craig is arguably the best actor ever to portray Bond and judging by quality, Mads Mikkelsen is one of the top three or so actors to portray the villain. Eva Green is by far the most intricate and well-portrayed Bond girl. The stunt numbers are of bona-fide Bond magnitude, in short: nothing but awesome, and at least for the first half it is an action packed wonderwork of technical splendor. Now, with that out of the way I hope I didn't brake any toes on the Pro-Casino Royalers. This was definitely a worthy action thriller. But was it in my book a worthy 007-film?
Well, it's an ambitious destruction of the franchise, the producers have clearly been active in their work of deciding what is to be renewed and what is to be screwed. First of all, and this is well-known by now, it is clearly a darker and more violent film than even License to Kill which seemed like the limit of where you could take that benefit of Bond's occupation. In this film necks are twisted, skulls are crashed on cracking tile walls, blood squirt from broken noses, torture is used in the most sadistic ways a Freudian can imagine and when death comes, there is no time given for final speeches. I guess this was unavoidable and to tell the truth, it didn't bother me immensely. Bond shoots, Bond scores. Secondly, the classic 007-plot that basically has been used since Dr.No has been scratched. This is more debatable. Not that I don't dig originality, but after a first action-packed hour we have one hour of...poker? Yes. As much as Thunderball was a film about diving, Casino Royale is a film about playing poker. And if you're in my shoes, this is just not very interesting. Sure, Mr. Bond excuses himself to kick some bad-guy-ass, but the main idea of the film is that of Craig and Mikkelsen trying to win a game of poker. Not only is it strange, it stretches out and enters the (first) ending of the movie. When we think we're in for a nice finale, people are still playing poker! I go, "You are late for the settling of the scores, boys!". The film ends quite abruptly, without any real excitement and the second ending that follows does very little for the pace of the film.
Finally, we have a serious and soul-filled Bond character here, and we have a villain that is nothing but human and on top of that we have a Bond girl who can melt James' heart ála Diana Rigg. That this film dives into a downright romance story for a while is not very strange for a Bond-buff. But having it in a film with sadism and bone-breaking-violence.... it's not my bowl of soup. It becomes quite uneven and even though I appreciate the idea, it is one of the film's major flaws. Another problem, though I feel like a dork to mention it, is Daniel Craig. He is a good actor and he delivers 007 with weight. But it becomes a problem when we are to get to know a more personal Bond, and Craig keeps a massive stoneface worse than Timothy Dalton's - not to mention the ugly and near-psychotic nature of the character. Bond in this film is simply not a very nice guy and I didn't really feel like rooting for him. The same goes for the villain, while Mikkelsen is a great actor his role becomes quite bland in all it's "normality".
No matter which way I look at it, Casino Royale, even though being a good and satisfying action picture, ends up a bit over-produced. The plot is strange and the desire to flesh up the story creates a lurch and the film eventually looses it's balance. Why both the hero and the villain are so colourless I don't know. Perhaps the reformation of Bond should have been completed over the course of two or three films, to get the balance right? If it's all worth it. Maybe it's just me, but somewhere it feels like more fun to watch the mad man in the lab getting blown away from a superhero-agent than watching two guys play poker for an hour. All in all, the future of 007 is a bit shaky in my eyes, and I guess that in the next installment, we will know for sure if this reformation has been in vain.