Business as usual (which ain't bad)

Rating: 7/10 (29 November 2006)

I enjoyed "Casino Royale," but I felt a little cheated when I left the theater, because the movie has been falsely advertised as a radical new start for the James Bond franchise. It's not.
I had heard, for example, that "Casino Royale" was going to be more realistic, in the vein of Ian Fleming's novels. Now, I haven't read any of the novels, but I've heard that the prose version of Bond rarely does crazy stuff like, for example, takes on thirteen machine-gun-wielding guys simultaneously - and win. But he does so here, within the first twenty minutes of the movie. He also runs through a wall and hops between girders on a construction site like Spider-Man. So much for realism!
It helps, though, that Daniel Craig is built like a human tank. Unlike most previous Bonds, he's convincing as a tough guy. He's not that charming or even that smooth with the ladies, but that might be because this is supposed to be Bond's first mission and he hasn't developed his teflon coating yet.
Lest I sound like I'm burying the movie, I should mention that I liked the lovely European locations, the cool casino setting, and even the action scenes, which manage to be exciting and easy to follow despite all the rapid editing. I like Texas Hold 'Em poker, too, so it was fun to see Bond trying his hand at it (typically he plays Baccarat, I think, but I never had any idea what that game was about!) Of course, most of the poker hands in this movie are ridiculously strong - "my royal flush beats your full house!" and that kind of rubbish.
On the downside, the film lacks a strong villain (Mads Mikkelsen with a bleeding eye doesn't count), and the romance scenes seem halfhearted at best. The script makes weird and ultimately unnecessary concessions to modern-day feminist sensibilities. Ye olde love interest, Vesper Lynd, spends about forty minutes psychoanalyzing Bond (don't bother, dear, he's a cardboard character) and insulting him before melting to his charms (sort of). I suppose this is "modern" romance for some people; to me, it's just a bore. If we're not gonna see any nudity, can we just get back to the shootouts and the card games, please?
My other minor complaint is the peculiar scene when Bond's... uh... family jewels are abused by the villain. Another odd attempt at "realism," it didn't quite work for me. (Whatever happened to fun, campy torture scenes, like the one featuring Goldfinger's death ray and the immortal line, "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!")
As you may or may not have guessed already, I'm not the world's biggest Bond fan - how many movies can one watch about a pompous guy in a tuxedo seducing chicks with suggestive names (boringly), playing cards in exotic casinos and defeating lame super-villains? I think the franchise needs an overhaul to stay interesting, and "Casino Royale" only partially - minimally - fits the bill. It flirts with realism, but doesn't go all the way.
Note to the production team - either push the realism further, or return to your fun camp roots. This movie lies in a somewhat awkward and self-conscious realm between extremes. It's still fun, though.