The twelve year old kid test

Since day one the Bonds have been an outing with your friends when you are twelve. Discussing at school who is coming to see it Saturday afternoon, sitting with your mates in the front row - and debating it while waiting for the bus on the way home. I did it with my friends back in the early eighties and as the lights went up on this corker I was pleased to notice gangs of boys doing exactly the same with Casino Royale. Excitedly chatting about the action sequences, explaining the plot to each other and whistling the 007 theme as they leave the cinema. Another generation is hooked.

I'm really not sure it is a kids film. There are moments in this which elicited squeamish moans from the audience. It is hard as nails. It depicts espionage as it actually is - a dirty nasty game where people end up very dead. From the beginning the audience is let into the brutal world that James Bond inhabits. A world so hard that only the strong survive by building their armour up. A world where you have to choose literally between your job or your soul. And, that is the theme of this adventure - that to become the man he has to be he must build barriers for himself.

Surprisingly adult, but Bonds shell has always been suggested rather then openly portrayed as it is here. In the Roger Moore years he was seen as a bon vivant gallivanting around the world but occasionally in The Spy Who Loved Me or For Your Eyes Only the glimpse of a far jaded character could be seen. And the Connery Bond? You really got the impression that this was a man who kept his barriers up to do a job and kept his sanity with sardonic humour.

Here it is explicitedly stated. This is Bond rebooted. This is how we see him become the man we know. Everything from the Aston Martin to the Vodka Martini gets its genesis here. This may be the one to start with if you have never seen the films before. This was a good idea because, to be honest, the producers needed approval after the fan/critical disaster of Die Another Day How come this one gets everything right while that one got everything wrong?

Well, to start this one goes back to the Fleming source and concentrates on character. Die Another Day didn't seem interested in James Bond it seemed more interested on the latest cgi and directorial techniques (plus stunt casting). Here we go back to the Bond of 1953 when Casino Royale was first released. A proffessional doing a job with all the stresses and anxieties of what that job entails. But he is going through a metamorphosis, as for a few hours those barriers come down and he gets very hurt - at the end the experience changes him and he becomes the man who we know from 20 earlier films. Theres also a pretty nasty torture scene which may explain why there are many little "Jimmy Bonds" running around the globe.

I cant think of a Bond actor who has had such abuse thrown at him for taking the role then Daniel Craig. Well, the naysayers got it horribly wrong with almost universal praise for his performance. Theres a brain whirring behind the eyes but at the same time a boyish pleasure of winding Vesper up when they first meet and the "valet" scene is a hoot. His breaking down of armour is just as difficult as hers and the shower scene is awkward and gawky as they come together. But you truly believe this is a maverick, a man with a very tough job. Daniel Craig plays a great Bond. I read one critic's review who said that it was if Craig played the role without knowing how the role was played by all those before him. I think that comment is dead on. Craig takes a completely different approach to Bond and the only other actor who can even come close to his Bond is Timothy Dalton. And the scary thing is that Craig is quite capable of snatching my favourite Bond crown from Tim.

The Bond films are only as good as their villains. And finally, after nearly twenty years, we get a good one with Mads Mikkelson. The Danish actor exudes menace and casting a European unknown rather then yet another "name" (ie Robert Carlyle, Jonathan Pryce) pays off dividends. Its back to the good old days as Bond and Le Chiffre face each other across the green baize. Its a duel to the death between two equally matched foes. But just as in the novel Le Chiffre is rather a sympathetic villian. His main motivation isnt blowing up the world but simply to recoup his losses before his deadly creditors catch up with him. And if he cant get his money by legitimate means he will resort to kidnap and torture. The torture scenes are pretty harrowing (and occasionally intentionally funny) and there is not a man in the cinema who doesnt wince when Le Chiffre swings that rope in that dungeon.

If Le Chiffre sticks close to the book then so does Vesper Lynd. Theres always been this image of "the Bond girls" that they are window dressing or just there to look pretty. Anyone who has read the novels knows that they along with the villains were the best drawn characters in the stories. Fleming used to give them little nuances to make them interesting - Tiffany Case, Solitaire and Teresa di Vicenzo were just as neurotic and unbalanced as Bond. Vesper Lynd carries on this fine traditon in a terrific role for Eva Green. Smart, but fragile and acutely aware of being in way over her head. She had a way of projecting a subtle tentativeness or nervousness (she is, after all, betraying two men she cares about), There is a terrific scene in the train carriage where the verbal sparring makes Bond literally verbally strip down her persona and state "her aggressiveness hides an insecurity taken by her bosses to be arrogance". Thats good writing and fits the Fleming character to a tee. We've had to wait ove fifty years to meet one of the best Fleming Bond girls.

And of course it being Casino Royale much of the action takes place in a casino. The "Texas Poker" game might not have worked and could have brought the whole thing to a juddering halt. But due to a clever script which has the game over several hours/days it can be broken up and the audience can easily pick up the game where they left off. David Arnold increases the drama with a good score and the writers throw in some shocks to keep the audience on its toes. And one of my favourite Bond moments EVER has to be when Daniel Craig struggles back to the table and delivers that line.

To be honest - this was what the Bond films desperately needed. I wasnt impressed by the Brosnan films. People rave about Goldeneye but it has barely any rewatchability, Tomorrow Never Dies was OK but both The World is Not Enough and Die another Day were both script and directorial messes. I secretly hoped that Bond would die a quiet cinematic death and my memories of twenty years of Bond films would not be tarnished. But Casino Royale has revitalised me. This old fan has new enthusiasm. I am looking forward to the new Craig James Bond film. Something I never said during the Brosnan era.

Well done to all concerned! And welcome back 007! You've been sorely missed!

Recommended:
Yes

Movie Mood: Action Movie
Viewing Method: Other
Film Completeness: A few glitches, but mostly complete.
Worst Part of this Film: Nothing