Forget what you thought you knew

Rating: 8/10 (16 December 2006)

First of all, apologies for the tagline-esquire summary line, but it sums up many, including my own, views of the film. Gone are the days of the invincible Bond, to whom injuries are mere fashion accessories. Gone is the Bond who masks every insecurity with glib retorts.
Welcome to a new age of Bond. What Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig bring to the table is a Bond at the beginning of his development: he has just recently been granted his Double-O status and it shows. When he falls, he groans. His feathers and ego get easily ruffled. When he makes his comebacks, they smack more of self-defence and desperation than the customary flippant indifference. And we get an insight into why he treats women like he later does.
Daniel Craig, with his new spin on the James Bond role has garnered both rave reviews and curses (cynics may with some reason say from women and men respectively) and both are somewhat justifiable. He convincingly plays the damaged action man, and even us guys would have to begrudgingly say he looks good. He also rises to the challenge of the increased emotional demand with admirable ease...he's not called upon to cry but covers pretty much the rest of the emotional spectrum during the film. However, this is a different Bond. For starters, there is the obvious physical difference: where his predecessors were lean and brunette, Craig is blonde and musclebound. His humour is also more wry than the traditional jokes that are JUST about on the acceptable side of cheesy. This Bond is also darker: not enough per se as to lose our sympathy for the protagonist, but as has been oft stated, it is certainly closer to James Bond as Ian Fleming initially intended. Whether this changes are for the better or worse is a matter of personal taste, but Daniel Craig is certainly no Lazenby.
Finally, I'm torn as to Casino Royale's merit as a film. As a fan of the previous movies (yes, even Die Another Day) I was struck by the difference in Bond and tone. We also lose the gadgets in favour of mobile phone technology and internet searches (MI6 using Google?!?). At least the Aston Martins, in all their shiny splendour, remain. And I wasn't personally a fan of the editing. There were perceptible Acts to this film, with stark location changes and objectives to them, and while the plot was never entirely ridiculous (but where they ventured that way, the action justified it) and the segues perfectly acceptable, nevertheless the film lacks the flow of Martin Campbell's previous Goldeneye (a slick specimen of what a Bond movie should be, in my opinion). Each Act and set-piece is expertly executed and I have nothing but utmost respect for all that was done. The action is brilliant, in particular the free-running sequence you've already seen glimpses of in the trailer; the poker, tense (I WOULD advise learning the rules of Texas Hold 'Em first if you haven't already) and the emotional exchanges, charged with all the quality you'd expect from such a well-selected cast.
In short, the movie is quality. The actors are without exceptional brilliant, in particular I would grant Mr Craig a standing ovation, and there are enough nods to the franchise and books (the recipe for the Vesper martini!) to make the fanboys satisfied. The action sequences are tense and downright exhilarating, and as stated, Craig handles these with apparent ease. The only potential downfall, if indeed it is to be thus regarded, is the change in the approach. I personally wasn't a fan of it on paper, but was won over by the calibre of the ingredients, but that is strictly a matter of taste. Either way, you know you're going to watch it, and I'm far from advising against it. Enjoy!
.....
Bond: Give me a vodka-martini.
Bartender: Shaken, not stirred?
Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?