Casino Royale
Review by Fritz Esker
I have a fondness for the James Bond series. My father was (and still is) a big fan, and I have a lot of childhood memories watching Bond movies with him. I remember feeling particularly manly when he took me to see A View to a Kill in 1985 (my first Bond film in a theater). That being said, the Bond movies feel particularly dated, even the best ones. Most obviously, the serial philandering of Bond seems horribly outdated after the advent of HIV. As feminism spread, most Bond films’ portrayal of women as passive victims and/or sex objects also seemed tacky and obsolete.
Finally, the rise of 24-hour news stations and Americans’ increasing awareness of the genuine brutality that occurs in matters of political violence made the Bond films’ bloodless, sanitized violence seem almost childish in a post-911 era. The people behind Bond series seem to have sensed this and have opted for a franchise reboot, a la what Christopher Nolan did with the excellent Batman Begins, with Casino Royale. The results, while not as sharp as Nolan’s work with the Batman franchise, are generally positive.
The film begins with Bond (Daniel Craig) as a new 00 agent with MI-6, having recently earned his two kills that give him the 00 rating. He finds himself on the trail of Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker for terrorists who carelessly gambles with the terrorists’ money. In order to save his own skin, Le Chiffre has organized a high stakes poker game at the titular casino. Bond, accompanied by a British treasury official (Eva Green), is expected to infiltrate the game and bankrupt Le Chiffre, forcing him to come to MI-6 with what he knows.
While the film modernizes Bond in many aspects, the action scenes remain pleasingly old-fashioned. That is to say, there is no overabundance of close-ups and quick cutting that plagues the Bruckheimer school of editing. During the action scenes, you see people actually doing the stunts, and it makes the action scenes all the more impressive. Granted, characters still commit logical fallacies, like why would a chased man climb up construction scaffolding, the one place where he stands the least chance of escape? But, for the most part, the action scenes are enjoyable.
In addition to this, Bond actually receives a character arc. Unlike the original versions, the Bond here is more of an anti-hero. The script acknowledges that Bond is both a cold-blooded killer and a misogynist. At times, he is rash and makes stunningly bad decisions. Still, he remains a compelling anti-hero.
The major way in which the film stumbles is its running time. It goes on for about half an hour longer than it feels like it should. While there are moments in the final thirty minutes that give Craig an opportunity to do some nice character work, the film could have benefited from some cuts to the overall running time.
Still, the filmmakers should be commended for doing the right thing and trying to take Bond in a new direction. Hopefully, they will write an original Bond script for the next film and veer off course from Ian Fleming’s novels. But hey, at least there is now hope for a franchise that seemed dead in the water.