Casino Royale From A Bond Fan's Point Of View

Over the weekend, I was able to see a movie that I've wanted to see for some time: the newest entry in the James Bond series of films, Casino Royale.

It absolutely ruled.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!

Daniel Craig has indeed deserved all the apologies I've seen from long-time Bond fans, critics, and pretty much everyone else, as his Bond is the closest to the gritty, egotistical, cold-eyed agent about whom Ian Fleming originally wrote. As I said to my wife when trying to describe the movie to her: it's like all the other Bond movies - lots of great stunts, action, intrigue, etc., and then you add in ACTING.

This is not to say that the other Bonds were bad actors (well, almost all of them), but I often got the feeling that they were simply foils to advance the plot of the movie and show off lots of stunts, etc. Craig, on the other hand, is an actor's actor. He's dissected the role of 007 and made it his own by making it Fleming's. The cheesy lines, when they were included (and that wasn't often), were delivered in a way that you know the character enjoyed saying it, instead of just saying them because it fit the pattern of a Bond movie. The ego was readily apparent, as was the loss of the ego when he found himself

The supporting cast was also excellent. I'll start with Judi Dench as M. It would be very easy for Dench to have simply gone into autopilot and put out a performance that was similar to the other movies - referring to Bond as a misogynisitc dinosaur, criticizing the playboy appeal, etc. But the good Dame did not do that at all. This was a different Bond, and she played to that new Bond extraordinarily well. She had whole new sets of problems with him, new sorts of respect for him, and a different relationship with him. He wasn't the golden boy of MI6, he was the newly promoted guy who was basically under probation. And he was sort of a pain in the ass to deal with. Dench pulled this off magnificently.

Eva Green was the perfect femme fatale for this new Bond. She was a strong personality, and it was clear that she didn't like Bond nor the mission because she didn't really understand either it or him. And she was clearly horrified by what he did for a living after the fight in the stairwell, but was also clearly attracted to him by his ability to realize that not everyone could deal with his work and lifestyle (as evidenced by the rather tender shower scene).

Mads Mikkelsen was perhaps the most believable Bond villain we've ever had (though Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye is a close second if not equal). For almost the first time, the villain wasn't just some rich guy with a weird tic of some kind. We actually understood where he was coming from, as the terrorist's banker who lost his clients' money with an "investment" gone wrong. And he was under serious pressure to get the money back before his clients found out about the situation. If he hadn't been such a schmuck, you could almost feel bad for him.

The action scenes made sense, instead of being done just to be visually stimulating. The fight scenes showed the real desperation of men locked in combat instead of being a cheesy way to show Bond's superiority over a bunch of guys foolish enough to try to attack him. And the editing was great too - they truly showed the awful-ness of two men fighting to the death - no silling karate chops a la Roger Moore or the famous two handed Captain Kirk punches. Daniel Craig has obviously been working hard on his fighting skills to make this look so realistic, and it paid off.

And another thing about the action scenes that was pointed out to me on my newest favorite podcast, Being James Bond: they weren't just a music video. The music, if any, was very incidental and let the action happen. In the past it's seemed like McG was the director for all the action sequences, and this one was the most realistic-seeming that I could imagine.

Now, as a Bond fan, I've read all the Bond work that Fleming has put out. Casino Royale was the first Bond novel written and therefore the first one I ever read (as I like to read all my works by an author in order). And it was the perfect book to start over with for that reason. But I wasn't prepared for just how much the movie was going to adhere to the plot. You can't say it was dead on, because it wasn't. The original was based during the Cold War and therefore was very much a NATO vs. USSR conflict, with Le Chiffre being the SMERSH banker. In this, he's more or less a private contractor who bankrolls terror organizations. But that's where the differences end, for all intents and purposes.

As anyone who's ever gone with me to a movie adapted from a book I like knows, I'm a stickler for being faithful. Now that's not to say that the stories have to follow the work exactly and to the letter, but they have to capture the spirit of the book and follow the same basic plot. The Batman movies frustrated me to no end, until the release of Batman Begins. That was an absolute masterpiece. And this was the same: I walked out thinking "Oh my stars and garters - they finally got it right." I was completely satisfied with the movie with one exception - it wasn't long enough and it's too long to wait for the next one. I got home that night and was disappointed that Amazon.com didn't have a link to pre-order the DVD yet.

I can sort of understand why Bond movie fans might have been disappointed with parts of this movie. Craig does not play the same cheesy super-agent guy that Moore and Brosnan played. In fact, his portrayal of Bond is closest to that of Timothy Dalton, in regards to the seriousness with which the actors play the role. And they didn't make use of Q, the gadgets, boat chases, spaceships, Jaws, and ladies who couldn't help but undress Bond with their eyes every time they saw him. And in all honesty, I sat there expecting it and was surprised by those scenes not being there. An example of this was when Bond first walks into the Ocean Club and talks to the lady at the desk. That was exactly the spot in a Moore movie when the undersexed hotel worker would check him out from top to bottom and suggestively respond to his request, followed by a smirk and polite rejoinder by Moore. We didn't get that in Casino Royale.

As I just mentioned, Craig's Bond is most like Timothy Dalton's Bond, IMHO. But the Dalton movies suffered from not trying to be realistic enough with the rest of the movie. Casino Royale never has that problem. They have re-started this series on the right foot, in my opinion, and I can't wait for more.