Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2006 > November > 17 > Entry
‘Royale’ triumph: New Bond the best in eons
All those people who criticized Daniel Craig for being too bland or blonde for James Bond are officially bloody fools.
I may seem a little uncouth, but the new Bond’s icy, curt demeanor has rubbed off on me. After only one film, Craig has become my second favorite Bond actor, after Sean Connery. He - and the movie - are that good. So good, in fact, that “Casino Royale” will become the first James Bond adventure to make my 10 best list.
I think the reason for this boils down to seven words in the opening titles: “Based on the novel by Ian Fleming.”
It has been decades since the Bond films have borne more than a passing resemblance to the writing of Fleming, Bond’s creator. Most of the time, the screenwriters would take a Fleming title and maybe one or two scenes, then build their own story around them. The last Bond movie that was truly an adaptation of a Fleming novel was 1969’s “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” so it’s no surprise that “Royale” is the only film since then that comes close to conveying such intense emotions throughout.
As “Batman Begins” did for the dark knight, “Casino Royale” “reboots” 007. Although the story takes place in the present day, and M is still played by Judi Dench, we are to assume this is our new introduction to Bond. There is no Q or Moneypenny. Gadgets and quips are kept to a minimum. Bond is not yet haunted by a tragic marriage, but the story shows us why Bond built the walls around himself that very few people have broken down.
The brutal, laconic but charismatic assassin that appears in this movie is very much the James Bond that Fleming envisioned in 1953, when he published the first of his 007 novels.
Having just secured his “00” status, Bond journeys to Casino Royale in Montenegro, where he is to match wits with the villainous Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) in a high-stakes poker game. If Le Chiffre loses, he loses his ability to finance the world’s terrorists. Meanwhile, Bond and the beautiful woman who assists him with the finances, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), find themselves drawn to each other, against their better judgment.
Just as there have been many different James Bonds, there are many different kinds of James Bond fans. Some prefer only the bare, no-nonsense action of the early Connery years. Others gravitate toward the more cartoonish, gadget-laden Bond that was prevalent in the Roger Moore movies.
Still others, like myself, enjoy both sides of 007. Pierce Brosnan’s Bond vacillated between those two, so it’s hard to say how his fans will see the movie. One thing is clear, however: The right man introduced both actors to the series, reinvigorating Bond each time. Director Martin Campbell helmed Brosnan’s debut, “Goldeneye,” and he does the same for Craig here.
I was glad to see Campbell back because he excels at directing physical action and stunts, which have always been the strength of these movies. I had never heard of a stuntman who was a “free runner” but I know now, thanks to an eye-popping chase scene in which Bond pursues a villain gifted with dexterity that would impress Spider-Man. And the scene reveals Bond’s personality too. When the villain slips through an open window like a snake, Bond simply bursts through the wall behind him. And that’s just one of many tense moments.
Yet what I loved about “Casino Royale” was that for once, the action scenes weren’t the core of the movie. The characters were. Craig is superb, conveying more than just steely resolve. He doesn’t have Connery’s superstar charisma, but Craig isn’t meant to. His piercing gaze shows a range of emotions. This is a Bond who looks ill at ease in a tux, yet has no compunction about breaking into M’s house to prove a point.
He’s not the type to defuse his dirty work with witticisms. When someone asks Bond if he wants his martini shaken or stirred, Craig snorts, “Do I look like I give a damn?” Craig has a spark of danger laced with an air of vulnerability about him that makes him utterly magnetic.
Matching Bond and Craig every step of the way are Vesper Lynd and Green, who gets my vote as the best Bond girl of all time. Yet Vesper is so well developed (in more ways than one) it’s almost demeaning to call her a “girl.” Other women have been equals to Bond, but Vesper is something more: she’s his mirror image. Like Bond, Vesper loves to show off to prove her worth, yet can’t completely hide her scars. It’s the most moving romance in Bond lore.
I could complain about Chris Cornell’s lame theme song “You Know My Name,” (which also evokes an unfortunate association with the looniest record the Beatles ever made). And I also wish I could tighten the screws on the last third of the picture, when the pacing, which had been so solid, becomes slack. But these are minor flaws in a minor miracle of a movie.
Not everyone will love “Casino Royale.” The film will divide audiences, just as the relatively spare “For Your Eyes Only” did when it followed the overstuffed “Moonraker.” But this fan, who has enjoyed 007 in all his guises, hopes that audiences will embrace Craig, who has the chops to serve the series long and well. The end credits always proclaim that “James Bond will return,” but the return that really counts here is Bond’s return to greatness.
GRADE: A
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Allie D.
November 17, 2006 6:07 PM | Link to this
I agree with every word, Eric. What a fantastic movie this was! I can’t compare it to the other Bonds, but Craig is absolutely superb.