This is Bond . . . Have No Fear

Rating: 10/10 (17 November 2006)

Many 'critics' have stated that although this film takes Bond in a different direction it still retains many of the franchise's trademarks (the locations; the girls; the action scenes) and while this is true to a degree, on the whole it utilises these elements in a more innovative manner than the other films. What makes Casino Royale so good and refreshing is that it is truly a Bond film, it is more about Bond as a character, as a spy, a killer, a human being, than it is about action and flash. All of this is still present, do not worry, and it is harder and more brutal than before, at times breathtakingly risky. I did not feel that one action scene was superior to another but rather that they flowed together and worked well in their respective parts of the film.
I never doubted that Daniel Craig would make a superb Bond and was very pleased when he was selected. He is the essence of Bond, charming, tough, volatile and conflicted. Not only representing Fleming's conception of the man but also epitomising many of the problems that confront him in a precarious world where he could be killed and may have to kill at any given moment. Craig shows Bond to be a man, in my opinion, who is well aware of the fact that he is working for an organisation fully prepared to deny his existence if he makes a serious mistake. This is an actor who embodies that quality so often erroneously attributed to lesser performers: presence. Yes, he looks impressive, easily capable of serious harm, but, more importantly, he is always in the moment, reflecting and reacting to the danger of the situation, from the relentless fights and chases through the Madagascan construction site to the many hands of Texas hold'em with Le Chiffre.
Mads Mikkelsen also deserves recognition for his performance as Le Chiffre. He plays the role as a villain losing face and losing confidence, which drives him to intensifying levels of cruelty in his dealings with Bond, but, at least, you understand what his motives are. He is as much at the mercy of his masters as Bond is and so they both stand to lose a great deal if they are not successful. The fact that Bond is dispatched to catch Le Chiffre for intelligence purposes rather than kill him adds to the tension between the two.
The makers of the film have done a fine job of retaining enough of the franchise's overall feeling while bringing something incredibly fresh to the table; stylistically it has elements from the Connery and Brosnan films, blending panache and spectacle. It is a film in which Bond develops and changes as a consequence of what he experiences and endures, he does not merely shrug off the ferocity of the fights and the deadly intent of his foes, it shakes him up and he learns from it. The writers and Craig take Bond seriously and yet, for my money, he has some of the funniest lines of any Bond, which don't rely on innuendo, representing more of a gallows humour than anything else. One line in particular got genuine belly laughs from the audience because it was so unexpected and yet brilliantly defiant.
My apologies if this seems like an exceptionally vague review but I'm sure you all know about the plot (and it's holes, no doubt) and how stripped back the film is  no Moneypenny, no Q, functional rather than outlandish gadgets, but you still get Judy Dench as brilliant as ever. It might be one of the longest running Bond films but it feels very trim where it counts. Even the title sequence has been re-conceived, although it still has that film-within-a-film feel, placing Bond at its centre and it goes very well with Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name".
The 10 rating I have given this is relative to the other Bond films, this one feels authentic, bringing out what Bond is really about. The main draw for the picture is Craig, who is flawless. I often wondered what the naysayers were looking for (I have a lot of time on my hands), whatever it was it always seemed profoundly superficial, which Craig's Bond, for all his muscle, most certainly is not. Craig is Bond. It's that simple. I also think that Casino Royale has more of a 'proper film' quality to it than some of the previous entries. As much as I enjoyed them, this one is more fluid.
The most important thing you get from Casino Royale is Bond, a superb Bond, an exemplary Bond, and that, after all, is what a Bond film should deliver: BOND.
I think I missed out a Bond somewhere.