With the November 17 world wide release of the 21st Bond movie, *Casino Royale, *the coronation of Daniel Craig as the new king of the action genre is complete: The king is dead; long live the king.
The arguments over who is the best Bond are largely rhetorical, but Craig is absolutely the *right *Bond now. He is splendid in his role as Agent 007, James Bond. Any arguments over Craig’s selection are over: He’s perfect.
As a movie, *Casino Royale *may very well be the finest Bond movie in all 21 editions. It is undisputedly among the top three. The perfect Bond movie has yet to made, and as more Bond films are released the task of creating the perfect amalgam of action/drama/satire/style and filmmaking becomes a more daunting task. *Casino Royale *has a couple shortcomings, but they are so minor and the film so luxurious, stylistic and thrilling that only the fussiest Bond aficionado will find something to critique. The rest is simply perfection.
Director Martin Campbell has the wisdom to make wide spread use of producer Barbara Broccoli, perhaps the greatest living expert on James Bond movies, in the production of *Casino Royale *and knows how to incorporate judicious use of new film making techniques for a perfect and dignified ode to the previous Bond movies without feeling even remotely dated. The film making techniques, edits, shots and camera movement in *Casino Royale *are pure Bond. There are 60’s style pans and corny, uncomfortable personal space wide-angle close-ups of villans under stress. It is all perfection. There are sweeping landscapes and beautiful lighting and delicious wardrobe. Did you see the perfectly tailored, crisp white short sleeve Bond wears when checking into his hotel in the Bahamas? Pure Bond, second only to the terry cloth pool romper worn by Sean Connery in *Goldfinger. *As a Bond movie, everything the casting and production staff did on *Casino Royale *is perfect.
There is a particularly interesting ode to *Thunderball *in Casino Royale when Craig engages in a deadly knife fight in the middle of a crowded museum exhibition. The entire fight is completed while surrounded by an unsuspecting crowd, in plain view. It is an elegant scene harkening back to the dance scene/shooting in *Thunderball *when Sean Connery’s Bond quips, “Can she sit this one out…? She’s just dead.”
*Casino Royale *is not a cookie cutter Bond movie. It only loosely follows the traditional Bond story-template of opening stunt/instructions/introductions/travel/conflict/climax/resolution. There is an opening stunt, and it is among the best of the Bond movies, which makes it the very best in all of action film. You also see Bond bleed. A lot. But you see him fight too and he is an incredible pugalist and pistoleer, laying waste to all comers with hypothermic detachment and coolness. The action is brutal and violent… and oh so good.
What we do see in volumes- and this is what I treasure most about *Casino Royale- *is the absolute unswerving devotion to mission. Bond is not back in *Casino Royale, *Bond is born in *Casino Royale. *
Another ingredient from previous Bond movies is the opulent travel. In the first twenty minutes of *Casino Royale *you will visit the Czech Republic, the Bahamas, Madagascar and Uganda. One of the reasons for my love of the Bond franchise is the wonderful travel to exotic and dangerous locations. You get your fill in *Casino Royale, *and each is treated with marvelous skill. Check out the cobra/mongoose fighting scene in Madagascar… Incredible.
As a movie *Casino Royale *does the Bond franchise proud. It is a fine stand-alone film even if the other 20 films never existed. Also, for someone not initiated into the franchise, this is the start point. I could easily understand someone not liking James Bond movies if their first experience with the series were *Moonraker *or *View to a Kill *as those movies need a lot of love and induce an understandable gag reflex in all but the most forgiving Bond fans. If you start with *Casino Royale *you will be hooked if you have a pulse and even a Cub Scout’s sense of adventure.
The characters in Bond are perfection but one is missing: “Q” makes no kind of appearance. Now, this may be an attempt to eradicate the error of casting comedian John Clease as “Q” in previous Bond films. If so, I’m glad there is no “Q” character, the master of weapoons and gadgetry for MI6. We do need to see a new “Q” in future Bond films and those are big shoes to fill. John Clease wasn’t the right man for “Q”, so better no “Q” than him.
We’ve covered Daniel Craig as bond, he’s perfect. The rest of the main characters are also spot-on with the minor exception of Bond’s girl, Vesper Lynd as played by Eva Green. She’s pretty, but she just doesn’t stir my loins. Not my type. Bond could do better. Mads Mikkelsen as the number crunching, blood crying Le Chiffre is majestic. He is such a bad guy. His henchmen are all hateable characters and his web is complex and wide spread. The perfect villan. His portrayal is perfect. Even Jeffrey Wright as CIA field officer Felix Leiter is really wonderful.
Overall there are only a few flaws in Casino Royale. The opening titles are awkward to me and not up to the standard of *Die Another Day *or other Bond movies that featured highly stylized opening graphics. For that matter, the theme song is downright poor and utterly uninspired. *Casino Royale *does not open with the traditional gun-barrel motif, but instead saves it until after the opening scene. I like the gun barrel opening right after the lion roars. I missed that. The movie is long and I think the pivotal card game scene could have been tightened up. It is a good scene, but it is long. If you read the original Ian Fleming novel *Casino Royale *then you give this part of the film clemency. There is only one special effect that is hoaky, when the jet wash of a failed approach on a 747 sends a police car flying. It’s a shame since the rest of the stunt sequence is great. Minor goof. Sony paid millions in production costs in return for product placement in *Casino Royale *but the products we see are disappointing. Why wasn’t Bond issued a new Sony VAIO UX280P Micro laptop for his surveillance? Oddly, a special Bond edition of the same computer with brief case and digital camera is available on the Sonystyle website, but Bond doesn’t use it in the movie. Hmmm. There is one mention of his Omega watch and a near snuff to his previous (future?) Rolexes.
Perhaps my greatest concern over this Bond movie is actually the next one in 2008. There is an odd fore-shadowing scene when bond almost says “M”'s last name, and she threatens to kill him if he utters another syllable. During Bond’s exit from the scene he (hopefully sarcastically) refers to “M” as “Mum”. Another reference later in the film explains Bond’s orphan upbringing and mysterious sponsoring to Oxford. Directors and producers: Please don’t make “M” Bond’s long-lost mother in the next film. That would gag me.
All things considered *Casino Royale *is the best birthday present I’ve ever had. It is a beautiful movie and a great Bond movie, which are two different things. Daniel Craig is perfect, the action is so good you leave the theater tired and the suspense is right up there. There might be a couple minor flaws but the strengths of the movie absolutely carry it.
Bond is born in *Casino Royale, *and this is a wonderful holiday treat and beautiful and most worthy addition to the Bond Franchise. I give *Casino Royale *four and a half stars: ****1/2. Don’t miss it!
