Review: Casino Royale

Before I even start this review, who the heck nicked my copy of Casino Royale from my office? I was reading it and POOF, it’s gone. Perhaps I left it at Vero’s? I can’t get no satisfaction.

We all know my love for James Bond. He is the uber-spy. The megastar that has sweeped a nation. Men want to be him and women want to be WITH him. Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang himself.

My love of James Bond started when I watched Goldfinger with Regan when I was visiting him in Cornwall one summer. Everything about it bled awe. The music, the exotic locales, the quick wit of one Sir Sean Connery. Evil henchmen, megalamania run amuck…it was all there.

Over the years, I have watched all the movie as well as hosting Summer of Bond where every Wednesday, one of the 20 films aired at our house and even if I had other plans, the film still aired.

James Bond is epic. I could go on about the franchise, but I digress from the original subject. The film Casino Royale.

The character of James Bond was written by Ian Fleming and the first novel was Casino Royale, dealing with James Bond taking part of a baccarat player. Baccarat is a card game for those not in the know (as I was). Essentially, a Soviet agent of SMERSH, Le Chiffre, has lost some of the organization’s money and has to win it back in a baccarat game that he hosts at the Casino Royale. SMERSH is like your modern day terrorist organization. In the films, SMERSH was renamed SPECTRE if that rings a bell. This is the organization that Ernst Blofeld was in charge of. You know…the bald dude with the cat.

So, essentially James Bond takes the assignment as he is a master baccarat player and then all around goodness happens within the novel. However, let’s point out some clear distinctions between the novel and the film franchise that we all know and love. Keep in mind that I read the novel after watching 15 or so films.

• From what I know, Casino Royale is more of a classic spy novel – the spy is rugged, fights rough, not polished at all.
• James Bond isn’t the womanizer we all know and love. He cares for the women he meets in this novel.
• He has no gadgets at his disposal.
• He doesn’t really have any witty comments.

With that being said, I wasn’t overly impressed the first time I read Casino Royale. However, I knew from the novel, that it set things in motion to what James Bond would become. Think of it being (gasp) a prequel. But let’s be honest here…it was the first book in the 11 book series (well, at least from the pen of Fleming), so it can’t be a prequel.

Fast forward to yesterday when I went with Krista and the Delion clan to see Casino Royale. It got off to a bad start as there were projector problems and it didn’t start until 30 minutes later. I didn’t mind…this was Bond we were talking about.

Wait. What am I saying? Was I excited to see this Bond film? YES! In a complete 180, I originally was very hesistant to see this film as I didn’t like how Daniel Craig was a rough looking, BLOND James Bond. This was not the Bond we have grown up with. Very hesistant indeed.

Until the reviews started pouring in. 5 stars everywhere. I’ve never heard of a 5 star film. Although I believe that the review industry gives a little extra oomph to a review of a Bond film just for the sheer size within the movie industry.

So with the great reviews coming in, I realized that I should start getting pumped for this film, not dismayed! 30 minutes of waiting ended and the movie began.

The movie is different from the other Bond films that I’ve seen. It’s rough. It’s grimy. It’s like watching an old school espionage film. At least in the beginning. Then the extraordinary locales make their appearance, and the inevitable action/chase scenes. Bravo on these. The first 45 minutes sets the stage for Bond to travel to the Casino Royale to take part in a poker match worth over $100M. I give the producers kudos for throwing poker into the mix instead of baccarat as the world has a poker fever for the past few years so they would understand the game.

Once they hit up Casino Royale, things get more into the vein of the actual novel (from what I can remember of it) and from the reviews I’ve read, it stays true to the novel. There’s not many gadgets in the film either and the cheesiness has been virtually stripped from the film.

In the film, we see Bond starting out in the double-0 business. He isn’t the cold, cool killer we know. It still bothers him to have to kill people. He has feelings, and you can see how he tries to hide those feelings behind his repartée. He makes mistakes along the way, he trips, he falls. Bond of old wouldn’t do this! He doesn’t depend on many gadgets other than this brute force. Also, he does a lot of running. I had a good laugh at how many different scenes have Bond running full tilt.

Right near the end, the projector messed up again…literally in the last five minutes. It came back on after a few minutes, but we got a refund on our tickets for the mishap.

So, what are my thoughts on the film?

• The style: A lot less polished than previous releases. Very gritty. It reminded me of the Bourne films. I see they were trying for this aspect…to get away from the old Bond films. Bravo, you have accomplished your wish EON Productions.
• The story: Hmm…Casino Royale, is not so much a prequel, but a reboot of the series. Sure, it follows Bond as he is starting out, but it’s set in modern times – cell phones, laptops, post-9/11. So it’s a little strange to watch it thinking it’s supposed to be a prequel. But it’s not. It’s a reboot. Keep that in mind. Forget everything you know about Bond. It was Krista and Maren’s first time watching a Bond film. I wonder if they enjoy the older ones?
• The characters: Well, all the supporting cast and villains were excellent. The question is, is Daniel Craig the man suited for the job? I am undecided as of yet. I don’t hate him, and he does portray the roguish version of Bond very well. So I can’t tell if it’s the actor I have a problem with, or the rough and tumble, non-debonaire version of Bond that I don’t care for. People say that this Bond is the first Bond who is more true to the novels…but I am a fan of the films, as well as everyone else in the world! It’s a tough gamble. Although I will point out that Daniel Craig is Maren’s choice of Bond – clearly indicated by the thumbs up she gave me during the movie when he walks out of the water in his swim trunks. Groan.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It definitely had the classic Bond elements, just less of them. Definitely no gadgets, unless you count a needle going into your arm and relaying what’s the status of your health back to HQ a gadget. No rocket packs here people. I highly recommend that you go see the film in the theatre. It’s bombastic. It actually reminded me a lot of the Connerry era Bond films – the way it’s paced, the cinematography.

A lot of people found the poker scenes to drag on, but I disagree. I enjoyed the playing back and forth between Bond and Le Chiffre.

We’ll have to wait and see if this becomes a better than average Bond film in my book. I am very fond of the recent Brosnan era films so this one is a grand departure, but not necessarily a bad one.