← Back to Reviews
in
(2006)
After the abysmal 2002 Bond outing Die Another Day, which saw Bond surfing on a CGI-tsunami and battling a henchman with diamond acne, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson thankfully saw it fit to reset the entire 007 franchise and take Bond back to his roots, back to the original James Bond novel: Casino Royale.
Casino Royale marks the debut of Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's master spy. Gone are the groan-inducing quips that plagued the scripts of Pierce Brosnan's Bond films. In their place was a new toughness, a new sense of danger that the franchise had not seen since 1989's Timothy Dalton outing Licence to Kill. Going in that direction was a risk, given the popularity of Pierce Brosnan and his films and the public rejection of Licence to Kill, but with an eye firmly trained on what the Bourne and Batman franchises were doing and the successes they were having, EON wisely marched on in this new direction.
While I do have my issues with Casino Royale as an adaptation of Ian Fleming's novel, it can't be denied that the film is an excellent film on its own merit. The film, thanks in large part to Martin Campbell's steady hand behind the camera, has a sense of class and elegance that had gone missing from many of the other recent entries to that point. In some respects, most notably in the atmosphere and the more serious tone of the film, it does feel like something more in line with Fleming's novels, albeit obviously updated to reflect a more modern sensibility.
Daniel Craig proved his doubters wrong in this one, showing that he was the perfect Bond for this new post-9/11 world where audiences want their heroes more serious and tougher than in the past. Craig excels in all aspects of the role here, turning in a much more nuanced performance in the role than we'd seen in a long time, possibly even as far back as Sean Connery's first two films. He portrays Bond as all aspects of the character. We see the superman aspect of him, the toughness, the charm, but also the levity and dry wit that had become a staple of the character thanks to Sean Connery and Roger Moore.
His co-star, Eva Green, is also superb as the mysterious Vesper Lynd. Green easily cements herself as the best Bond girl in ages, playing off Craig's Bond excellently. Their love affair is a bit underdeveloped in the script, one of the marks against the film, but Green and Craig do a good job of selling it, giving the audience enough reason to become invested in it.
There are problems with Casino Royale. As already mentioned, the love affair isn't entirely believable, at least in the way its structured in the script. Craig and Green sell it, but in terms of how its actually depicted, it is rushed. The film is also front-heavy, featuring two over-the-top action set pieces that feel more like holdovers from the Brosnan films than something that belong in the same film as the second half of Casino Royale. I've always maintained that completely axing one of these set pieces could have allowed Campbell more time to spend on the love affair between Bond and Vesper, and could have allowed more time for Vesper to be terrorized by the eye-patched Gettler towards the end of the film, which would have brought the film more into line with Fleming's novel.
Still, Casino Royale is an excellent film, the kind of Bond film that was needed in 2006 when the Brosnan films had grown too outlandish for their own good. Craig established himself as one of the best Bonds of all-time with this film, signaling great things to come in future entries.
(2006)
After the abysmal 2002 Bond outing Die Another Day, which saw Bond surfing on a CGI-tsunami and battling a henchman with diamond acne, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson thankfully saw it fit to reset the entire 007 franchise and take Bond back to his roots, back to the original James Bond novel: Casino Royale.
Casino Royale marks the debut of Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's master spy. Gone are the groan-inducing quips that plagued the scripts of Pierce Brosnan's Bond films. In their place was a new toughness, a new sense of danger that the franchise had not seen since 1989's Timothy Dalton outing Licence to Kill. Going in that direction was a risk, given the popularity of Pierce Brosnan and his films and the public rejection of Licence to Kill, but with an eye firmly trained on what the Bourne and Batman franchises were doing and the successes they were having, EON wisely marched on in this new direction.
While I do have my issues with Casino Royale as an adaptation of Ian Fleming's novel, it can't be denied that the film is an excellent film on its own merit. The film, thanks in large part to Martin Campbell's steady hand behind the camera, has a sense of class and elegance that had gone missing from many of the other recent entries to that point. In some respects, most notably in the atmosphere and the more serious tone of the film, it does feel like something more in line with Fleming's novels, albeit obviously updated to reflect a more modern sensibility.
Daniel Craig proved his doubters wrong in this one, showing that he was the perfect Bond for this new post-9/11 world where audiences want their heroes more serious and tougher than in the past. Craig excels in all aspects of the role here, turning in a much more nuanced performance in the role than we'd seen in a long time, possibly even as far back as Sean Connery's first two films. He portrays Bond as all aspects of the character. We see the superman aspect of him, the toughness, the charm, but also the levity and dry wit that had become a staple of the character thanks to Sean Connery and Roger Moore.
His co-star, Eva Green, is also superb as the mysterious Vesper Lynd. Green easily cements herself as the best Bond girl in ages, playing off Craig's Bond excellently. Their love affair is a bit underdeveloped in the script, one of the marks against the film, but Green and Craig do a good job of selling it, giving the audience enough reason to become invested in it.
There are problems with Casino Royale. As already mentioned, the love affair isn't entirely believable, at least in the way its structured in the script. Craig and Green sell it, but in terms of how its actually depicted, it is rushed. The film is also front-heavy, featuring two over-the-top action set pieces that feel more like holdovers from the Brosnan films than something that belong in the same film as the second half of Casino Royale. I've always maintained that completely axing one of these set pieces could have allowed Campbell more time to spend on the love affair between Bond and Vesper, and could have allowed more time for Vesper to be terrorized by the eye-patched Gettler towards the end of the film, which would have brought the film more into line with Fleming's novel.
Still, Casino Royale is an excellent film, the kind of Bond film that was needed in 2006 when the Brosnan films had grown too outlandish for their own good. Craig established himself as one of the best Bonds of all-time with this film, signaling great things to come in future entries.