Casino Royale is based on, by far, the most boring of Fleming's novels; though it serves as the introduction to Bond the character, in effect our hero does little but sit around smoking and playing cards. This movie remains painstakingly true to the book, for the most part, which is both a good and a bad thing in the long run. But Royale isn't trying to be a Bond film; in fact, it tries so hard to be an anti-Bond film that it hurts. The object behind this film, much like with Batman Begins, is to show you where the hero came from and who he was before he became so mythic.
At least in BB, Bruce Wayne gets to be Batman. Here, such is not the case. Daniel Craig plays a real hard-ass killer, one who drinks, plays cards, and is both quick-witted and fast on his feet. He's a pretty cool guy but make no mistake, he is not James Bond. Bond, even going back to Connery, is supposed to have a touch of the larger than life about him (though maybe not so much as Roger Moore gave him), and here, the filmmakers are strenuously determined that, outside of the action sequences, that not be so. Bond, as well as being a ruthless agent, is supposed to be a little suave, a little dashing (again, even going back to Connery); but Craig has (or was directed to have) none of that charm. He comes off as an intelligent, intuitive assassin, but not the super-spy that, frankly, most fans of the Bond series want to see.
It doesn't help that he has no real villains to fight against. Le Chiffre (Mad Mikkelsen) is an international banker who launders black market funds, which isn't the same as a Chinese mastermind taking over an island in the Bahamas or a former Russian general stealing a laser satellite. Some people complained that these elaborate villains and schemes were what weakened the franchise, but look at an excellent barometer of what it is to be Bond, the Austin Powers movies. Mike Myers understands better than the Broccoli estate that what helps to make Bond Bond is pitting him against a worthy adversary. Granted, Le Chiffre is the villain in the novel as well, and in staying faithful to the book, they didn't have much choice but to use him. But even in the novel, when Bond beats Le Chiffre at baccarat (here dumbed down to poker), there is a sharp sense of relief and triumph. Here, when Bond wins, it's like a foregone conclusion, and the moment carries no impact at all.
When Bond is running around trying to catch or kill someone, Royale is great. The extended pre-credits action sequence is really well done, but the problem is, it's pretty much the entire action for the whole movie. Again, this is merely following the book, but the filmmakers failed to realize that what passed for exotic in 1954 doesn't any more. Just having a sequence set in the Bahamas in the 1950s was exciting (still true of Dr. No in the early 60s). But with the shrunken world of the 21st century, we're not impressed with Carribbean locations or Montenegro's casinos. We've seen this all before.
Royale is in and of itself an okay film. It's too long, and the twists and turns at the end are rather obvious (and they take waaaaaay too long to get to). The first hour and a half move along reasonably well, but the last 45 minutes drag. Craig is engaging enough as the lead, gruffer than Bond should be but ultimately he's an acceptable spy. The real problem with the film (aside from length) is the intent; the filmmakers try far too hard to remake Bond for a new century, when really, there was nothing wrong with the old Bond. By going back to the beginning of the saga, they were consciously trying to erase 40 years of cinematic history; a tall (and unwanted) order, and frankly, one that this movie is not up to. It's a little like the recent King Arthur movie with Clive Owen not a bad movie at all, but not a particularly good representation of that iconic character. Sadly, since this film is doing well (the theater was the most crowded I have seen since Star Wars last summer), we'll be stuck not only with this actor but this version of Bond for the next few years. Here's hoping the next fella gets it right.
At least in BB, Bruce Wayne gets to be Batman. Here, such is not the case. Daniel Craig plays a real hard-ass killer, one who drinks, plays cards, and is both quick-witted and fast on his feet. He's a pretty cool guy but make no mistake, he is not James Bond. Bond, even going back to Connery, is supposed to have a touch of the larger than life about him (though maybe not so much as Roger Moore gave him), and here, the filmmakers are strenuously determined that, outside of the action sequences, that not be so. Bond, as well as being a ruthless agent, is supposed to be a little suave, a little dashing (again, even going back to Connery); but Craig has (or was directed to have) none of that charm. He comes off as an intelligent, intuitive assassin, but not the super-spy that, frankly, most fans of the Bond series want to see.
It doesn't help that he has no real villains to fight against. Le Chiffre (Mad Mikkelsen) is an international banker who launders black market funds, which isn't the same as a Chinese mastermind taking over an island in the Bahamas or a former Russian general stealing a laser satellite. Some people complained that these elaborate villains and schemes were what weakened the franchise, but look at an excellent barometer of what it is to be Bond, the Austin Powers movies. Mike Myers understands better than the Broccoli estate that what helps to make Bond Bond is pitting him against a worthy adversary. Granted, Le Chiffre is the villain in the novel as well, and in staying faithful to the book, they didn't have much choice but to use him. But even in the novel, when Bond beats Le Chiffre at baccarat (here dumbed down to poker), there is a sharp sense of relief and triumph. Here, when Bond wins, it's like a foregone conclusion, and the moment carries no impact at all.
When Bond is running around trying to catch or kill someone, Royale is great. The extended pre-credits action sequence is really well done, but the problem is, it's pretty much the entire action for the whole movie. Again, this is merely following the book, but the filmmakers failed to realize that what passed for exotic in 1954 doesn't any more. Just having a sequence set in the Bahamas in the 1950s was exciting (still true of Dr. No in the early 60s). But with the shrunken world of the 21st century, we're not impressed with Carribbean locations or Montenegro's casinos. We've seen this all before.
Royale is in and of itself an okay film. It's too long, and the twists and turns at the end are rather obvious (and they take waaaaaay too long to get to). The first hour and a half move along reasonably well, but the last 45 minutes drag. Craig is engaging enough as the lead, gruffer than Bond should be but ultimately he's an acceptable spy. The real problem with the film (aside from length) is the intent; the filmmakers try far too hard to remake Bond for a new century, when really, there was nothing wrong with the old Bond. By going back to the beginning of the saga, they were consciously trying to erase 40 years of cinematic history; a tall (and unwanted) order, and frankly, one that this movie is not up to. It's a little like the recent King Arthur movie with Clive Owen not a bad movie at all, but not a particularly good representation of that iconic character. Sadly, since this film is doing well (the theater was the most crowded I have seen since Star Wars last summer), we'll be stuck not only with this actor but this version of Bond for the next few years. Here's hoping the next fella gets it right.