You Know My Name

Rating: 9/10 (5 December 2006)

Okay so I like Chris Cornell's title song  don't judge me. And before you ask, yes, the film is THAT good. Although it boasts of a massive 144 minutes worth of running time, it feels completely condensed in each scene, making you want heaps more of each character, storyline and setting. In short, Casino Royale is to the Bond franchise what Batman Begins was to the dead-and-buried Batman: a well-deserved kick up the arse, a blunt diversion from the run-of-the-mill 007 films of recent years, but still retaining faithful key elements from the saga.
The difference between the two springboards Batman Begins and Casino Royale is that while Christian Bale seemed tailor-made for the role of Bruce Wayne, Bond heir to the throne Daniel Craig appeared a dark horse, and attracted much criticism because of it. With rock-chiseled features, an imposingly muscular physique and clear baby blue eyes, I take no shame in admitting he is, by far, the sexiest James Bond we have seen. This may sway my review. Be that as it may, cultists and agnostics alike should recognise that Craig's more human and realistic nature should serve as a mark of his character's credibility in the film. Bond has just been promoted to 007 status  still wet behind the ears  and botches his way through many missions, bleeding, sweating, letting his guard down and pouring his heart out, which further heightens the realism of the otherwise extravagant extravaganza.
I say extravaganza because the core of Casino Royale still retains strong Fleming elements like high-staked poker playing, eccentric villains, gorgeous femmes, unspeakably exotic locations, inventive torture scenes, high-speed car chases with shiny Aston Martins, madly acrobatic stunts, furiously adrenaline-pumping combat, epic aerial shots, high-tech gadgets, product placement by the bucketload and dutiful plot twists. The difference between Casino Royale and previous Bond installments is that all of the aforementioned take a backseat to the story, its central cast and its heart. Sometimes the difference is merely a subtle one: the opening credits are dazzling and Bond-like and at the same time not  there are no naked dancing ladies but a hard-boiled super-agent in the montage. Bond orders a vodka martini, but he does not give a damn if it is 'shaken or stirred'. The mandatory Bond girl is stunningly pretty but also remarkably intelligent. The main Bond villain is theatrical, yes, but he is not a bad person.
The latter, if you want to nitpick, is Casino Royale's fatal flaw. There is a distinct lack of a satisfying villain. The much too peppy-looking Dane Mads Mikkelsen is far too likable in the film and what is more is given a very limited amount of screen time. What good is a superb Mikkelsen if you are not going to use him? Here is a creative and capable actor who is never given the chance to get his scumbag on, even though we are given a taste of his sadistic antics in the notorious torture scene (as well as the explanation why Bond never impregnates his one night stands). As the menacing-sounding Le Chiffe, Mikkelsen is not playing the high-staked poker game in Montenegro for prestige or money; he is doing it because he owes the top of the hierarchy an obscene amount of cash. This creme de la creme group of villains are given screen time much sparingly and there is no ultimate showdown, except perhaps on the poker table at Casino Royale. The good news that needs to be interjected here is that although I do not know a thing about poker, the film crafted its playing sequences so assuredly with perfect angles, tense atmosphere and music that is was impossible not to be entranced in the whole thing.
Luckily (er, I guess) James Bond has enough demons to face without the presence of a clear-cut template villain. The warping of gender roles turns Eva Green as Vesper Lynd into a feisty colleague  not the desperately mouthy and tough-chick politically correct kind (no offense, Halle Berry) but a real, complex individual who shows vulnerability in more ways than panting, pouting, screaming with wide eyes like previous Bond girls. Her character is one of many showcases for how well director Martin Campbell succeeds in taking the middle-road approach in the film. The dialogue is witty and fun, but not desperately punchy. The plot unfolding is unpredictable, but not desperately twisty. James Bond is hard-edged and hard-boiled, but not a pure-bred killing machine. He is good-looking, but not an in-your-face pretty boy. There are some neat gadgets, but there is no over-the-top sci-fi plot fodder developments á la Q.
Casino Royale is as hard as it is hearted and as action-pumping and kinetic as it is introspective. This should be enough for any film and following the low standards that the abysmal Die Another Day set, this may as well be the Godfather of the James Bond franchise. There are one or two films from the franchise that I would perhaps rank higher but it is probable to suspect that nostalgia greatly clouds my judgement there. Best of all is that Casino Royale will not date at all  the setting is timeless and so is the action. I have not met a person who has not enjoyed this film immensely, which should serve as a mark of its high entertainment value. A must-see for cultists and agnostics alike.
9 out of 10