Casino Royale is the Bond film that I've wanted to see for a long time, ever since I started gravitating towards the more serious films, like For Your Eyes Only, and From Russia With Love. Though I grew up adoring the more campy installments, and use to affirm that Roger Moore was a much better Bond, thanks to his smarmy delivery and indefatigable charm, with age I found myself appreciating the quieter films. In time, I was able to watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service without cringing at Lazenby's arrogance, while Timothy Dalton's portrayal of Agent 007 crept its way to the top of my esteem. By the time Brosnan donned the tux in GoldenEye, I was ready for the franchise to "mature" with my own tastes, and offer something more serious, more thoughtful, than its reputation implied.
Alas, the rest is writ in countless reviews, and inscribed upon the master reels that encapsulated Brosnan's watch on the franchise. After Die Another Day had its day, I all but dismissed the franchise, and though I planned to attend the twenty-first Bond film, whenever it appeared and whoever assumed the eternal role, my hopes were mute, my expectations non-existent. There would always be the greats, and besides, a twenty-film run isn't something to scoff at.
This sentiment started to change a few months back, when news of the latest Bond film started trickling into my awareness, and I caught promises of a more serious tone, and a move away from the silliness and magnitude that plagued and I use this word knowingly, because the phenomenon grew worse with each successive film the previous entries. I also saw Layer Cake for the first time, and was very impressed with Daniel Craig's presence and talent. But still I kept my hopes on reserve, especially when I found out that the same director and screenwriters behind recent films were on deck for this one.
I have since seen Casino Royale twice, and I can say without hesitation that this is one of the finest Bond films since From Russia With Love. Normally I don't like to use superlatives in my critique of a film, but with the sheer number of stumbles and resounding flops in the last few decades, it is necessary to use such language here. The fact is, the Bond franchise was in need of a change, despite handsome box-office returns on the last arc, and a level of brand loyalty that probably makes other companies envious. So long as the producers responsible for maintaining the character were determined to continue doing so, it behooved them to take a step back, look carefully at the last few films, and make some changes.
They did exactly that and more. The first time I saw Casino, I was thrown by the sheer number of adjustments that have been made to the long-standing formula. Some of them are slight such as the timing of the "gun-sight shot" that used to start each film while others are major, like the absence of Q; a major reduction in sexuality and innuendo; and next to no gadgets. On top of this, Craig's portrayal of Bond is so involved, it was as if the character had never been played before; not once did I think of Connery or Moore or any other predecessors. With determination that is etched in his cold face, Craig makes this role his own, and leaves no doubt that this is Bond. As if to drive the point home, the film features a scene where Craig tries on the tux for the first time, and just stares in the mirror for a few seconds, allowing the audience to make their own appraisals.
The biggest change, however, is apparent in the tone of the film. As promised, this is a much more serious take on Bond than anything that has come before more so, even, than Glen's in License to Kill, or Hunt's in OHMSS. I've since heard comparisons to the Bourne films, and Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, and all of them are apt: Casino bears the stamp of modern influences, re-casting a formulaic character in a grave, professional mold, one that blends in with other contemporary re-tellings that favor grit over classical heroism and old-fashioned child's-play. In fact, in their zeal to push an updated archetype, the filmmakers almost go too far; if Casino were any more violent or brooding, it would threaten the fabric of the franchise, and undo the very elements that make it a Bond film.
Fortunately, this does not happen, and while Casino is definitely one of the more violent installments, this is more due to Craig's intensity than any actual bloodshed. Thanks to Craig's talents, there are far more fist-fights than gun-fights, and each of these is excellent; the second time I saw the film, I could not wait for a particular scene that takes place in a stairwell, featuring some of the best choreography I've seen in a western film since A History of Violence. Not only does Craig play the part to the hilt, he also looks it, with steely eyes and a pugnacious expression that belong to a scrapper. The filmmakers, for their part, must have realized this potential, as they put Craig to work throughout the film, and even made way for a scene one of my favorites where an impatient, furious Bond lets his temper get the better of him, and prepares to undo the mission with rash action. Passing his local contact, he barks "Get the girl" and proceeds with grim intent. In those few seconds, I held my breath until the outcome.
That reaction, right there, is what surprised me most. For years, I've avidly followed Bond's adventures, whether on tv, video, or the big screen; for years, I've read about him, talked about him, written about him, even thought about him as a cultural icon; for years, he has been an integral part of the media I know and love. And yet, this is the first time that I've actually cared about Bond in a long, long time; constant he may have been this whole time, but complex? Challenging? Interesting? I'd be hard-pressed to give a yes to any of those questions. Until now, Bond has been a static quantity, more of a fantastic construct than a man, a weird ideal that attracts sex and violence and one of the coolest musical scores ever conceived of.
Until now: with Casino Royale, all of that has changed, and with it, so has my estimation of the character, and the franchise. Now, Bond is a fighting man; now, Bond is pitted against a major organization of shadowy substance and intent, a la SPECTRE; now, Bond is affected by what he does; now is something different for a franchise that has been around for years, subsisting on fan loyalty and frayed formula. As I stated at the beginning of this review, Casino Royale is the Bond film that I've wanted to see for years- and now that I have, I am satisfied in a way that only a fine Bond film can make me feel.
12/3/06
