Pretty impressive, but far from perfect

Rating: 8/10 (17 November 2006)

Sometime in 1996, I randomly rented a movie called Goldeneye. It turned out to be a really good movie and only after seeing it, did I find out that James Bond was actually a character in a long-running series. I became hooked on the series soon after. Being quite the fan, I was terribly disappointed by Die Another Day, but still loved Pierce Brosnan as Bond. So when Daniel Craig, an actor who has never impressed me at all, was signed on to play Bond in a remake of Casino Royale, I became a little disappointed right away. I saw it anyway, and to my surprise, was impressed for the most part.
If I really go into the plot, I may ruin it, but suffice to say, the film is about James Bond's (Craig) first assignment as 007. After he botches the apprehension of a bomb-maker in Madagascar, he stumbles upon the code word "Elipsis". Not knowing what it means, he chases the leads, and eventually ends up at a fairly high stakes poker game at the titular casino, involving the obviously villainous gambling addict Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson).
The film is not really deep at all, but it still does a good job. When they say that the film is darker and grittier, they really mean that it is just really violent. Die Another Day was plenty darker than this film. Same goes for the "realism". Yes, Bond takes a number of hard beatings throughout the film, but scenes like the fight in Madagascar near the beginning of the film are just as ridiculous as Bond films always have been. Not to say it is not well done or anything, but it is just as silly and over-the-top as one should expect. The film also contains the trademark cheesy dialogue, blatant sexual humour and badass one-liners from Bond himself. There are plenty of nods and homages to the earlier films as well (from Craig walking out of the ocean much akin to Ursula Andress in Dr. No, or his winning of a 1964 Aston Martin straight out of Goldfinger), and all are so successfully tucked into the film that only true Bond-philes will be able to pick up on them.
As a Bond fan, I was quick to dismiss Craig as a bad pick for James Bond, but I was very impressed with how he pulled it off. Yes, he needs to work on the charm and charisma that made Sean Connery and Brosnan's portrayals so irresistibly cool, but his valiant first effort is very well done. He is convincing as the hero that we all know and love, and he does justice to the role. I did like seeing him actually make mistakes, and I did like seeing him not always win. The ego and rebel attitude he exhibits throughout the movie is very well performed, but as the film nears its finale, it becomes a little excessive. He is an amateur and the filmmakers just seem to want to drill us with this ideal until they are blue (like his way too prevalent eyes) in the face. I was still unsure about Craig during the film, but after finally hearing him say "Bond, James Bond", I knew he was an alright pick.
The supporting cast all do pretty well for themselves in their small roles. Mikkelson as Le Chiffre practically sizzles on screen, but is given far too little time to really develop. Same goes for Caterino Murino and Jeffrey Wright, who clearly look and feel underwritten. Judi Dench puts in another excellent performance as M, and it was great to see her finally letting loose in a few sequences. She was way too mellow in the last few films for her own good. Eva Green does great as Vesper Lynd, and despite some fairly inane dialogue, was great to see play off of Craig. She has just the right amount of attitude and sexiness for the role, and she never feels like she is getting too silly for her own good (unlike Halle Berry or Denise Richards just to name a few). She is a strong female character, and she holds her own against everyone else in the film, and does it with just the right amount of class that to be seen as a proper Bond girl.
My only real problem with the film (other than a complete halt in the third that the film barely recovers from) is in the fact that it is contemporary. People are using cell phones, laptops, M is a girl, 9/11 and the war on terrorism are heavily prevalent themes. Now if this was not a really lengthy franchise, I would not have a huge issue. But after 20 films, they wanted to go back and redo it. Okay, that's fine. It worked for Batman Begins, and it worked for Superman Returns. But they left out things from the other films. Here, they seem to want us to just think that Bond randomly went from superstar double-0 agent, to a beginner within a four year span. It does not fit in right, and it sure as hell is never explained the way it should have been. It feels like a terribly awkward transition, and despite all of its greatness, makes the film really fall down a few notches. They could have at least set the film a few years ago, not in the present day. How is it supposed to jive continuity wise if there is better technology here than in any of the other films?
In the end, the movie feels fresh, and is a definite step in the right direction for Bond. Now if only Craig can really grasp what it takes to truly be Bond in the next film and the filmmakers decide on how they want to make the film work against the others, will we truly get the Bond picture that we all really will praise.
8/10.