Casino Royale

James Bond has been part of a franchise that has spanned over 26 films as well as several portrayals of the titular character, and with this expansive line-up comes with it a fair share of successes and a fair share of duds. During a lesser period, director Martin Campbell, brought the world GoldenEye in 1995, which was considered a return to form for Bond and presented a new Bond in a largely successful fashion, so it only made sense that during another bad period after Die Another Day got mixed to low reception upon release, Martin Campbell would be brought back again to look after and direct the next film that would hopefully bring the Bond name back, Casino Royale. Set during an era when James Bond (played now by Daniel Craig) has only recently achieved 00 status, which results in him being impatient, reckless, and uncomfortably blood hungry. Seeing this as a potential issue, head of MI6, M (played by Judi Dench) sends Bond on a mission with fellow agent, Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green) to bankrupt terrorist financier Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen) in a poker game in which he always seems to succeed in. Caught in a position with having a partner in a time when he isn’t needing one and with the threat of funding terrorists on the line if he fails, Bond will have to cool his head, fit into the mantle that the agency requires of him, and prove that he is capable of being a top agent. Based on the 1953 novel of the same name written be Ian Fleming, Casino Royale is the third version of the story to be told; once as a 1954 television episode of the show Climax! and the other as a 1967 ensemble satire film featuring Peter Sellers and Woody Allen. This one would be the first film to present the story as intended and it began a massive hit, reinvigorating the Bond franchise and set the stages for a new era to begin.

Casino Royale as a story is already one that has a lot of unique and different aspects in comparison to several of the other Bond stories, and it was this change that was drastically needed in order to bring the franchise back in the modern era. Over the course of several films, the Bond movies (regardless of whether or not they were loved) had fallen into a formula-driven pattern; resulting in predictable and expected elements in each film that slowly started to eat away at people. So, introducing this film with a new slate, a new bond and a story that was predominantly about reshaping and changing the cliches and tropes of typical Bond, it was a perfect choice, yet came with the chance of things failing by making things too different. This makes it an even smarter decision to have Campbell behind the directing belt, as it gives him the ability to retool the formula to freshen the franchise up, but still understand the original style and tone of Bond in order to keep things feeling consistent. Because of this, the film’s pacing and directing is very well handled; it’s a movie that honestly doesn’t have the clearest or even most interesting narrative, but throughout, it balances this espionage set-up with a sub-plot featuring romance, changing personas (as well as the creation of a famous one) and a narrative that gives Bond a lot more dimensions than the character ever had previously. The narrative flow is a lot more unpredictable and entertaining than a lot of the standard ‘bad guy wants this; good guy stops him’ layout that they had previously, the script written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis does great at updating the formula while also sticking what works in the franchise, and the fresh take and even connective format that this film is presenting itself works nice as a change of pace from the usually stand-alone nature of these Bond films and makes for a great new start. It developed the films from a campy comic-book style atmosphere to a more grounded, yet still energized and flashy environment where new elements could thrive, and familiar elements could be readjusted.

This story also feels a lot more character-driven than any previous version, and this also turns out to be a good thing as it helps the movie stand on its own as the actual plot substance isn’t anything that interesting or even that engaging. The changes that are made to the status quo, as well as what they do with Bond is the meat of this story. Bond in this film is actually gifted a great arc and defined change for the rest of the franchise; seeing this usually reserved and composed agent being a fist-first angry slightly psychotic maniac is actually really cool and adds a nice touch to a familiar role. While it doesn’t do a lot with the character despite the great set-up, it does at least acknowledge and entertain the idea, which is a great direction to take. What honestly holds a lot of this back is the actor playing Bond himself. While Daniel Craig was a ‘controversial’ choice for the role for some fans, he does carry the correct attitude and energy that could work as a Bond role, the problem is that he feels like he hasn’t crafted a full persona for the role, which leaves this version surprisingly having little personality. A lot of the character’s identity hasn’t been shaped yet, so there’s a strong lack of charisma and confidence, it’s mostly just a moody man who occasional says something witty and looks kind of crazed, there’s not a lot to work with. While that may be the point (he isn’t really James Bond yet), what he is before isn’t that much more interesting, its solely thanks to the story deliverance that these interesting ideas even exist as oppose to the portrayal itself. He get’s better as the film’s progress, but he doesn’t have much here. The villain is also surprisingly poor; Mads Mikkelsen is a very talented actor, but he just feels wasted here, with a character that has zero intimidation or interesting personality, is mostly seen getting beaten up by other henchman, and doesn’t even have a unique connection/dynamic with Bond (which is always a great part of this franchise). With that said, everybody’s acting is pretty good and some of the new characters are fun additions. Eva Green, for example, provides a very great portrayal as Vesper, creating a character who feels on equal footing with Bond and provides a nice change of pace from the usual ‘Bond girl’ trope.

After the previous films got flack for being too reliant on CGI, it was a goal of this film, as well as special effects designer Chris Corbould, to make the film feature as many realistic set-pieces and physical stunts as possible. It means that the film featured little to no computer effects, and the physicality of the action results in some truly outstanding fight sequences that really help in the film’s new tone and identity. The previous film’s had physical action to, but they felt kind of goofy and fit within the sillier tone of the traditional spy films. With this one’s grittier stance, the action feels a lot more like a modernized spy film; with a lot of parkour, quick-paced stunts incorporating the environment and continuing to escalate the situation as the fight keeps going. These action set-pieces go on for a pretty long time, but the deviations that are sprinkled in help to keep them from getting boring and the fast-pace of all of them means that people don’t focus on the length of them. The final fight at the end gets a little cluttered and unfocused, but the opening makes up for it with a fantastic chase scene that keeps building and building and ends on the perfect note. Its refreshingly limited in big flashy overly dramatic set-pieces and keeps the film feeling down-to-earth and not too computerized (but it does result in a pretty cool opening credits sequence).

Casino Royale was exactly what the Bond franchise needed at the time, and it was a very successful project as it resulted in allowing it to reach bigger heights (even creating what many argue to be the greatest James Bond movie ever in Skyfall). It changes things up to create a newer feeling Bond with a bit more dimension and a little less problematic, and it led its way into creating a newer world with a more grounded feel. While it could be argued that it still could have gone further with some of its great set-ups and options, this was still a big departure from the usual formula, so any progress is appreciated. The movie’s pace and direction is pretty great, the acting is solid overall, some of the characters are written very well, the action can be pretty fantastic in places, and its one of the key reasons we still have the James Bond movies going strong to this day. Check it out for yourself, see the first film of the Bond that people were actually willing to boycott the movie for casting (seriously) , and make sure to discover how the famous 007 got his name.