Casino Royale: The Return of the Classic

Casino Royale: Return of the Classic
By Thomas Crown

So, as my girlfriend and I strolled into the Senator Theatre Thursday evening, the paparazzi atmosphere, countless Bond fans, and fun champagne reception didn't distract the thought process of my mind. Before I see a new Bond film, I always contemplate about how I would envision the perfect Bond film. While the details we Bond fans love to squabble about: who should play Bond, the Bond girl, who should direct, etc, are important, for me the quintesstial Bond film succeeds on three primary levels: a true sense of authenticity to Ian Flemings 007, a respect for the earliest Bond films that set the series standards, and new/surprising takes on what we have come to see as the "traditional" formula for a Bond film. Surely, it's quite a challenge to remember that, for no matter how objective I see those standards, they are biased towards my own views of the series. Most of the pre-film buzz is filled with me reminding myself this film was not made with just me in mind, but a whole audience with varying expectations for 007. Nevertheless, this is the perspective from which I come from, and the perspective in which I evaluate the film.

Now, on to the review.

In a word, fantastic.

Casino Royale, by succeeding on all the fronts I had mentioned above, re-defines the cinematic interpretation of 007. So often, Bond fans will pinpoint particular aspects of a 007 film that scream authenticity to Fleming, or prove the characteristics that made Bond so initially popular are still alive and well in some form. With this film, we don't have to worry about pinpointing them; they are what define the film. In this sense, the film stands out from all others before it as it doesn't claim the traditional "Bond formula" as its roots, rather the transformation of the 007 character as seen in Ian Fleming's original novel. Surely, there is enough about the film that makes it familiar, but this time, those familiar "Bond elements" are what we have to pinpoint, rather than a true closeness to Fleming source material. Here, that closeness is unrivaled in the series.

True credit has to be given to both the producers and Martin Campbell for making this happen. 007's initial journey has never been given true justice, and long time fans of the series should be pleased that it's finally taken seriously (as that has been a dream of their's for such a long time). Before I get into analyzing the film in depth however, I want to make a quick point about Pierce Brosnan. It seems many critics and fans have taken to revisionist history on his era of films, classifying them as mind-numbing, all-action-no-plot extravaganza's that merely impeded this type of film from being made. First and foremost, this is the type of film Brosnan had advocated making since the beginning of his tenure. In many cases, his push for a deeper characterization of 007 that is evidenced in his films has helped make the Casino Royale we now watch possible. In no way is praise of this film an indictment of the Brosnan era. In my view, it's a vindication of what Pierce Brosnan wanted to achieve all along and did so in his run as 007.

Now, on to the 64,000 dollar question: how was Daniel Craig? Perhaps Fleming described him best: "ironical, brutal, and cold." His face, quite truly a "taciturn mask" evokes danger, charm, and animal instinct. His parading around topless is a throwback to the earlier films and novels, where Bond was seen as physically competent enough to move around shirtless. "Competent" however, is not a strong enough word for Craig, who re-defines action intensity in the 007 films. Seeing him dangle from crane's, jump on to tankers, finding the energy to sprint after running through jungle's and construction sites, and employ more hand-to-hand combat on his foes than any other Bond before him instantly convinced me this guys bad side is not the place to be. The high amount of close ups in the action scenes let us inside 007's mind, getting a feel for the tension that must be going through his brain. The best action scenes are really at the beginning of the film, which I believe help us later on understand the fatalism Bond will demonstrate about his own life. Oh, and I absolutely loved Bonds clever escape from the embassy: those that deride Bond for never thinking on his feet and always looking for the nearest gadget will find themselves eating their own words merely 15 or so minutes into the film. Amazing!

As we move towards the second act, we get less physicality and a great understanding of why Craig is not only a great actor, but how he re-defines 007. He simply can't be compared to the actors before him as, unlike all his predecessors, was not cast in the mold of Sean Connery, and doesn't cite him as such. This is essential to re-defining the role in a prequel, and requires an actor willing to change some fundamental tenets of the part to make it work. And it works so well because Craig isn't trying to put his own face to the role, rather give us what many fans have long waited for: a true adaptation of Fleming's killer. Like I mentioned before, this is not a Bond film where you have to pinpoint the silver lining of Fleming moments, rather they are put at the forefront of the film. We see Craig's 007 as one willing to take risks not only out of arrogance, but a genuine fatalism about his own life. He walks a tight rope of confidence (that, like Flemings hero, sometimes doesn't serve well at all) and emotional attachment that, at the end of the film, lets him come to the same conclusion Flemings Bond came to: He would not go after those that spy, but rather the threats that made him spy. There is no advantage in being emotionally attached to those in a world of deceit, and this tragic outlook on life begins to form the smooth exterior evidenced at the end of the film when Craig confidently executes his name. A brilliant performance and probably the first 007 performance I would consider truly Oscar worthy. He has won me over as the quintessential interpreter of Flemings James Bond. And I add the pre-cursor of "Fleming's" James Bond as Connery is still the cinematic benchmark.

The film itself greatly adds to Craig's faithfulness to the novel by transforming the lush, exotic surroundings, and twist-layered plot into the 21st century while still having the feel of the 1950's. Michael Wilson has always mentioned 007 takes place in the times in which the films are made, yet this is the first film since 1969 to feel timeless as it incorporates a retro look to its black and white opening scene, 60's looking title sequence, and Fleming-era furniture and set pieces into M's apartment, and Casino Royale itself. Martin Campbell really delivered this balance and hats off to him for doing so. The color, slow pacing, and action sequences, are representative of the intensity he showed off in GoldenEye. Surely, Casino Royale could pass for where Bond met Xenia, and the chase sequence with the bomb maker in the beginning showed off the speed of the wonderful 007/006 finale on top of the satellite dish. It's great to have him back, and I really hope he stays.

Purvis, Wade, and Paul Haggis are really a great combination. They have the advantage of a great book as their source material and use it very well. It was hard to focus on the film at times as I was attempting to keep a mental tally of all the scenes that were straight literary adaptations. Purvis and Wade proved with The World Is Not Enough and most of Die Another Day that they know how to bring Fleming source material into the modern era, and they do their most loyal job here, keeping/adding to the travelogue style locations, and keeping the plot relatively tight. I can see how the third act, beginning with Vesper and Bond wanting to travel the world together can seem to drag, and I toss that up to the anti-climatic feel of some of the Venice sequences.

The action in the latter half really doesn't add up to the intensity of the first act, and some better pacing of the action may have to be in order for Bond 22. Nevertheless, we are given plenty to go on with regard to an eventual sequel, and an entire network of terrorist organizations that could be developed because of this film and how it ends. I love the idea of Bond films actually being "sequel's" of each other, something felt up to Thunderball, brought back a bit with the references to previous films in On Her Majesty's Secret Service but only hinted at since. Again, we don't have to look for the silver lining of a sequel in this film, its right in front of us.

I deliberately refrained from speaking on Haggis because I wanted to talk about his great use of dialogue, a real let down in the majority of the Brosnan films, especially Die Another Day. Here the characters bantering with each other is actually funny rather than corny, and brings back a Maibum/Connery/Young quality of using humor to release tension and develop relationships. The best example of this was the torture sequence. If you thought Bond telling General Moon to "tell it to the concierge" was entertaining, you will be both laughing and shrieking during this torture sequence. I was very impressed and hope he continues to polish Bond scripts.

The delivery of dialogue was also essential, and can be credited to what I believe was the series best ever cast. Like GoldenEye and many of the earlier films, stars were chosen by what they can bring to the story, rather than box office clout. The double billing of Halle Berry and Pierce Brosnan really got to me last time 'round, and I was pleased to see Eva Green brings an "intellectual" match to Bond. Rather than proving her worth physically, she does so emotionally, and with her wits. The chemistry between her and Craig is fun, enjoyable, and even for those like myself have read the book, believable enough to think she may actually not betray him after all. I love the fact that the door is open for her to come back in Bond 22 in some form, and she should, perhaps in an audio message. A real opportunity was lost with Diamonds Are Forever to use Tracy's death as a motivational factor in the story. With Craig at the helm, I don't see that happening with Vesper, someone who, as Bond says, "you get one sip of, and it's all you want to drink."

Madds Mikkleson and Judi Dench fill their roles admirably. Both give great characterizations and add something to their characters not seen in a long time. Le Chieffre mirrors what made Franz Sanchez so good: a Bond villain who is a mirror image of Bonds arrogance, but emotional detachment leads him to pursue the gods of money and power instead of Queen and Country. To know that's really all that separates the two men makes their dialogue together quite frightening. You really believe for a moment Bond may just turn in the torture sequence, it's quite suspenseful. Dench is also excellent, giving her M an edge not seen in the Brosnan years. She is still quite involved in the story, which I think the Brosnan films used to their advantage and Casino Royale does as well. She was also given some of the best lines.

David Arnold's score is also quite notable, evoking the emotion of scenes and saving the Bond theme for when it would be recognizable; when Craig's 007 first truly evokes a suave exterior. His use of an aptly title song, "You Know My Name" proves to be a great way to connect the scenes, and the song itself works well with the film and the retro-looking title sequence. Though I do wish a few dancing girls were noticeable, and it seems a bit too simple given some of the treats we've been exposed to in recent years thanks to Danny Klieman.

Ultimately, this is the Bond many fans have been waiting for all their lives. I know that's quite a loaded pronouncement, and perhaps I should clarify its meaning. Like I started with, the cinematic Bond has always been relatively distinctive from its literary counterpart, and since Thunderball most Bond fans have accepted the cinematic formula to be far too accepted and praise to be tampered with. Of course there have been exceptions, like On Her Majesty's Secret Service which have proven less successful and increased the timidness about a return to the authenticity of Ian Fleming's 007 evidenced in the first four films. Yet the concerted effort beginning with Dalton, and what became popular with Brosnan, has been towards a return of the essential qualities of Ian Fleming's 007.

Casino Royale is without a doubt the climax of that return of the classic. While I'm not quite willing to crown it with "greatest ever" status yet as it's newness factor has yet to wear off completely, let's hope now that the return is upon us and it lasts for a long, long time.

9.75/10

#1 Thomas Crown

#2 Loomis

#3 Thomas Crown

#4 MooreisMore

#5 Mr. Du Pont

#6 Vauxhall