Casino Royale (2006) November 18, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Martin Campbell
Bringing Bond back to the screen is always an event in British cinema, but never more so than on this occasion. A new actor, a new style, and a semi-reset for the franchise have all been issues for contention over the past year. But final judgement can only be reserved for the finished product, and as thousands of audiences sit down around the country to see it this weekend I offer only two words of advice: Brace yourselves.
The story is based on Ian Fleming’s first James Bond novel, and is an uncharacteristically simple tale. On being upgraded to ‘00’ status, Bond is forced to go it alone after a capture mission in Madagascar goes wrong. He tracks down members of the cell, and finds them linked to a terrorist banker, Le Chiffre, who is about to hold a high-stakes poker game in order to recoup some badly invested money. Knowing that Le Chiffre could be a valuable source of information, MI6 give Bond the opportunity to enter the game, beat Le Chiffre, and then force him to seek protection in return for information. Of course it’s never that easy, and as the stakes rise so do the dirty tactics, leaving Bond to risk his life on the turn of a card.
From the ultra-cool opening exchange, inter-cut with a gritty fight sequence and shot in noir-esque black and white, you know this is not going to be an average Bond outing. The movie then blasts its way into one of the most spectacular chase sequences I’ve seen on screen in recent years. Martin Campbell’s direction really shines through as we follow the duo from a market, to a building site, up scaffolding, and onto a couple of huge construction cranes. It’s stunt work supreme, and real seat pinning stuff.
‘Brutal’ is one word to describe this new direction, and in a way that Brosnan wouldn’t have been able to get away with. The actor swap-out has actually given a new lease of life to a character that was relying more and more on gadgets than his own abilities. Gadget buffs will be disappointed to learn that they hardly feature at all – and the film is better off for it. Writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis have taken licenses with the Bond staple elements (including the opening ‘barrel’ sequence, and drinks order), but done so in a way which really works, and doesn’t over-emphasise the point at all.
The big story of course is Daniel Craig as Bond. But if there’s one thing I took away from Casino Royale it’s that we make too much of who is playing that role. As long as he fits the bill, and is a good actor, it shouldn’t matter as long as the final movie is of high quality. ‘But he’s blonde!’ To be honest, I didn’t even notice. Craig is, incidentally, brilliant though, and proof that finding a strong actor is more important than what he looks like, or the colour of his hair.
The movie is not perfect by any means, there’s an element of predictability towards the end, and I take objection to some important plot-points being explained after-the-fact, in a way that doesn’t link with the main story. 
There’s also some unnecessary commentary from one character during the poker sequences that starts turning a very tense game into Late Night Poker on Channel 5. But I guess that’s nitpicking what is currently going down as the most successful action / adventure movie of the year.
We’re truly entering a new age for the Bond films, and for the first time since Goldeneye it’s exciting to see where it will go next. The strength of the character is shown in how differently he can be presented, and yet how familiar everything remains. Watching Casino Royale only serves to cement this fact. To all the xXx’s, Ethan Hunt’s, or even that kid in the Stormbreaker movies, I’m sorry guys, you missed the boat. Casino Royale proves that there will never, ever, be another franchise as strong as this. And with that we wait, albeit with restored excitement, as the credits tell us what we already know: ‘James Bond will return’.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?