Well, it's certainly about time, now isn't it?

Fifty three years and twenty some-odd films into the series and we finally get Episode One.  And no, please don't take that as some kind of Star Wars reference.

Where to begin THIS time?  At the beginning.

Character.

Usually for these things I start with an overview.  Not this time.  This time it counts.

James Bond.  Not some actor overstaying his welcome, not some personality trying to prove himself marketable.  James Bond.

No more hybrids, no more barely getting by with vague references to a cold war character made recognizable by advertising tie-ins and clichés.  No more arched eyebrows.  We're past that.  And we're not going back.

It's 2006, and James Bond is a 30 something year old agent on his first 00 mission.  Quite an accomplishment.  No longer a cold war dinosaur (to mention a cliché that at least for the last few films, became the extent of character exploration and took the series down the sad path that ended with the second half of Die Another Day), but a living, vital character.  

There's no cleaning up of this Bond.  He drinks, he bleeds, he sleeps with married women, he gambles, and he throws his stones on the line (literally at one point) as a young man should.  He's arrogant, he's brash, he's everything that the film series has been trying to avoid since Thunderball.  Thank God.

Finally, James Bond is a character.  Finally.  He's not a suit, he's not a set of ridiculous mannerisms designed to make a celebrity fit into a wobbly rubber suit with the name James Bond stamped on the lapel.  He's a character.  He lives.  And the reason he lives, is Daniel Craig.  

Every time someone steps into the role of James Bond, some vapid reporter from yet another nameless tabloid desperate for filler hunts Sean Connery down for his opinion.  Year after year, film after film, Connery, now in his seventies, definitely availing himself of his status as Bond Mark I, and happily always just the narsty side of gentleman, says the magic line, herein paraphrased,

"Oh, they'll soon be forgetting the old Bond in favor of the new model."

And  the reporter will slog back to the entertainment desk and dutifully report that this new Bond is "the best Bond yet".  And years will go by while the series grows more and more stale and we of the world of Bond Fandom will excoriate those we dislike in favor of those we find, well, tolerable.  This time, however, there's more than a modicum of truth in Connery's well worn review.  

I'm as guilty of this favoritism as most of you, serious vs. funny, spectacle vs. storyline, and lastly (along with leastly (?)) Bond vs. Bond and that's why Casino Royale is a severe and necessary slap in the face for every last one of us.  

It's more than a wake-up call, it's mouth to mouth resuscitation, it's the kiss of life with a bitter aftertaste.  It's the revelation of a character coming forth to grab us by the lapels and tell us, straight to our faces, that we have been wrong, that we have been duped into proclaiming some actor or other the "real Bond", without letting the character himself have his say.

Well, now it's our comeuppance.  Get ready.

From day one, from the very announcement of the new choice for Bond, the internet ran with vitriol.  Why?  Because this new fellow, well, he's freaking BLONDE.  He doesn't LOOK like James Bond.  He'll never do.  Give us someone who LOOKS like James Bond.  Never mind if the fellow can act, or put emphasis on a line, or has any screen presence whatsoever, just put some bloody idiot in the suit, throw us a bald villain with a penchant for world domination and let's get on with it.  

And what did the media do?  They picked up this falderal and ran with it, the way they do, because they needed filler, something for Mary Hart or whoever the hell is hosting these damned "entertainment news" shows to whine about in between stories about Angelina Jolie's eyeliner and how world hunger could be solved if only Stephen Spielberg would go back to making movies about nice aliens and kids leave all that holocaust stuff for the History Channel.

Yeah.  I'm pissed.  And this IS the review.

Go back.  Look at the news reports.  Look at the whiners.  Did they once ask the question?  Do they even know the question now?  Well, here it is.  Mark it down.

Can he play the CHARACTER?

Can this new actor leave the suit behind?  Can he so immerse himself in playing the CHARACTER JAMES BOND and not himself and give this grand enterprise back to the character that made it worthwhile in the first place?

They didn't ask it.  In fact, they ran away from it.  They ran away to the five minutes of Fleming references that filled a few moments in between Roger Moore smirks and Pierce Brosnan tie adjustments, and screamed that THAT was the James Bond of the books, that THAT was the James Bond they wanted and how DARE anyone think a blonde man could ever delve into the amazing emotional depths of this one dimensional screen icon.

Well, now it's time to give them their answer.  

No.  

Daniel Craig could not play that icon.  He's too good.  He's too thorough.  He had to go back, all the way back, and find a CHARACTER to play.  

And he did.  He found a young man, on his first 00 mission.  He found a brash young man more comfortable facing an event head on, damn the consequences because of his youth, not because it's late in the film and we need an action sequence.  He found a man to play.  He found James Bond.

And he did something no one else has done since Connery.  He played that character, that man, for an entire film.  

The last time I saw Bond onscreen was Timothy Dalton at the beginning of The Living Daylights.  Was that the same Bond?  Yes, and no.  Dalton played a different Bond, an older Bond, aware of his history, with years of 00 work under his belt.  Self assured, set in his ways, sure of his accomplishments.  Doing his job.  But once that sequence ended, that Bond faded once more into the background.  It was time for the formula to take over, and it did, leaving poor Tim out there on his own.  More on this later… I promise.

But here, with Casino Royale, we're given a Bond at the beginning.  Certainly he's got the ability, and the cockiness, but he doesn't have the experience.  He doesn't have the smooth reliability that Bond will gain as he ages.  He's learning as he goes, and he's pushing the situations he's in because that's where we all start in life.  He doesn't know when to stop pushing because he never has.  And that, it turns out, is the perfect place to start.  

Granted, Craig has a huge history to draw on, but it's to his credit that he DOESN'T.  He has the incredible luxury of being able to start from scratch and unlike any other actor since Connery, he does.  

Think of this as Craig's challenge.  You've just been chosen to play James Bond.  You have all of these performances to bank on.  You have Connery, the original, the blueprint for the cinematic character.  You have Lazenby, honestly not as much of an actor as he could be, trapped in Connery's performance without the nuance to add to it.  You have Moore, totally uninterested in character, simply making his own personality his idea of "character".  You have Dalton, serious, devoted to the books, yet trapped in the films, and lastly you have Brosnan, the (here we go again) amalgam Bond.
Where do you go?

Amazingly, and I mean that, AMAZINGLY, Craig doesn't play ANY of those choices.  He goes back to the books, he takes the character as written and instead of playing off what has come before, he makes the choices that, taken from Fleming, will LEAD his character to become the character that Connery began with, that Fleming created in 1953.

And here comes the hard part, explaining this without turning it into Harold Bloom-like Bond-olatry.  This week, thanks to a friend who purchased the Bond Boxed sets (along with viewings of my desperately antiquated earlier editions), I looked at the Bond we've been given with Casino Royale and took it a step further.  Does Mr. Craig's performance (in this supposed first adventure) lead into the character that follows.

The answer is yes.  Look at Casino Royale, at the character arc (God knows it's been a century and a half since I could actually write that phrase about a Bond film and it feels GOOD) and how Craig proceeds from the "blunt instrument" of the opening sequences to the somewhat more accomplished secret agent/assassin of the final "shot".

Now, look at Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball.  It's there.  The character is there.  I can easily see Craig's Bond developing into the Bond of the first four films.  It's a natural progression.  That's the only time in the series where it all falls into place with Bond's character.  Put a few years on the lad, a few more experiences, a bit more worldly ennui, and the look Bond gives Sylvia across the Baccarat table says it all.

This film, and the work Daniel Craig does, truly sets up the great films in the series.  Casino Royale actually adds to the first films, and reminds us that before the gadgets and rip-offs, before the nuclear whatever poised to destroy whomsoever unless superheroics are performed with a laser gun in space, there was a character, and that character can be traced through the good movies in the series.

There.  I said it.  The good movies.  And that difference has never been more palpable than it is now, thanks to Mr. Craig, and the return of character.    

Character, character, character.

Now, for the film itself.

Opening sequence?  Black and white.  Grainy.  Serious.  A perfect introduction to a grainy, serious character.  
Theme song?  I liked it, but it's not something I'm going to be buying (each theme song sold separately?) if it's not on the soundtrack.  

Title sequence?  Very good.  Mindful of the book, of the basis for the characters.

Story?

Loved it.  Not a Nehru jacket sporting bald fellow in sight.  Simple.  An International banker for terrorists is playing the stock market with his clients' money.  He plans to make a killing (!) through an act of terrorism and loses the money thanks to the intervention of James Bond.  Now, the villain has to replenish his funds by buying the poker table at Casino Royale, and Bond is there.  Nice update.  

I was afraid initially that poker would just be too, well, "howdy, howdy" what with every twenty something with the ability to shuffle a deck playing the damn game, but that turned out to be it's attraction and gave me one of those wonderful moments where you know what cards the hero has when even the villain doesn't.  

And the "tell" was brilliantly set up.  No more will be said.

The Villain.

LeChiffre is well played.  I almost winced at the displaced tear duct, but you know, it was a nice poke in the ribs from the more over-the-top aspects of the series, as if it was there to let us know that Fleming's love of the grotesque goes on and yet we can rest easy that there will be no offers of stainless steel delicatessens while this Bond is in charge.

I would have liked a bit more interaction involving LeChiffre early on, but his setup was good.

Mathis.  

Perfect casting.  I demand that he return in the next installment.  There is no better character in the series to help Bond define himself.  He's the father figure that our new 00 needs to build him into the character he needs to become.  He can introduce Bond to the upper crust, to the gentlemanly art of spying.  

I hope, I hope, I hope…

I'm skipping a major character here, but we'll come back round in a moment.

The Writing

Best dialogue since Maibaum.  Bar none.  The dialogue between Vesper and Bond on the train and at dinner is the best in the series.  Perfectly written, perfectly played.  

And the very best Bond-ism since Thunderball, the line at the table as Bond returns from his parking lot intervention.  (Once again, I leave it to the viewer)

I must mention the torture scene.  Incredible.  To fans of the novels, it was an essential moment.  To the unaware in the audience, it was a jolt they never saw coming.  No more suits, no more quips, simply two people in one of the most claustrophobic scenes in the entire series.  Bond's reaction with humor came completely from character and while some in the audience were wincing because of the torture, I was dazzled by the decision to have Bond react the way he did.  Exceptional in every way.

A special mention of Mathis' throwaway about the cavalry coming over the hill to save Bond, the only reference to the original Casino Royale in the film.  Just a nice moment to let the longtime fans of the series know they're loved.

Direction.

Martin Campbell needs to stay for another film.  Please.  Now is no time to go hunting for another quick-fix one shot director with a pantyhose fixation (sorry Lee…).  You have someone good, who obviously has a feel for character (There's THAT word again…) and the ability to shape a film around a performance without making it obvious he's doing it.  Keep him!

And now, the bitchy part that most of you knew was coming, and yet hoped against hope I wouldn't bring up.  Sigh…

The woman.  No,

THE Woman.  

There are two women in Bond's life that are essential to his character.  Vesper Lynd and Tracy (Bond).  He loses both, one through suicide, the other through murder.  The rest are replaceable.  The rest are essential to him only during the mission and a subsequent period afterwards.  Yet these two women are connected through a)their ability to love and be loved by Bond, b) their initial contact point of Royale Les Eaux, c) their demises after the meat of the story has ended, thus giving both women the taint of tragedy and d) the element of suicide.

For now, let's leave Tracy aside.  She holds a special place in the hearts of Bond fans, as she should, but that, somewhat unintentionally brings us to the point of this.

Of all the women in Bond's life, Vesper is the first (that we know of) to have a permanent impact on him.  It's even been mentioned in the buildup to Casino Royale, therefore it is essential that we understand her place in this story.

Vesper is THE woman.  Her actions, her love for Bond, and his love for her in return on this, his first mission shape him for the rest of his life.  Her actions are on his mind when he meets Tracy, the only woman James Bond marries in the series.  His memories of her and her actions mold him, create the cold attitude that he carries forward from this point.

More to the point.  Her complicity in LeChiffre's plans, her revelations in the note, and in the end her suicide harden James Bond, make him take a look at the man he has become, at his head-on attitude and force him to realize that there is another way, that if he's going to be a spy, he's going to have to adapt, and accept that he is probably going to be alone for the rest of his life.

Now, all that's in the text and subtext of the book.   It's only partially there in the film even though you can feel it TRYING to be in the film.  And this, in the end, is my only serious gripe about Casino Royale.

Now, first of all, I thoroughly enjoyed Eva Green.  She is an exotic looking woman, with a haunted/haunting aspect in her manner, as if there's something ethereal there, just off to the side and for some reason I completely believed that this was the kind of woman Craig's Bond would fall for.  Her timing, especially in the aforementioned dialogue scenes was perfect.  So, the problem for me was not in the woman, it was in…     

The ending.  

The last twenty minutes could EASILY have been fit into the rest of the film.  Instead, we're given a series of disjointed events that only make sense to fans of the series.  After two hours plus, to be suddenly dragged off to Venice for absolutely no reason except an exploding, sinking building took me completely out of the film.

Tell me why I needed this action sequence.

Well, I can hear certain people thinking, because we needed some time and distance between events.

Why?

Well, because Bond needed to heal.
  
Granted.  But then we're suddenly healed and on our way to Venice?

Well, we needed the relationship to develop…

No.  We didn't.  Develop it earlier; build the connection DURING the game.  Use it to build tension.  Develop it WHILE the rest of the film progresses, not throw it in as an afterthought, and a) we're with them all the way, b) you can cut ten minutes out of this interminable ending, and c) we lose the need for a completely unnecessary action for action's sake sequence in Venice.  

It was essentially the filmmakers job to integrate this relationship into the storyline.  It's already there if they try.  The dialogue scenes between Bond and Vesper flow beautifully and the character work is all there, just waiting for the proper order, yet the order never comes.  It's tacked on, when it should have and could have flowed with little adjustment.

Strengthen the relationship earlier, so when she refuses to give him the extra money, it hurts both him and her.  Don't depend on the recovery scenes, especially when one minute he's getting his ghoulies swatted, then a few minutes later he's recovering and jumping on Vesper.  

If you're going to use this stuff USE it and you give us a stronger film.     

Alright, let's start with the money.  The money hasn't been transferred yet.
How long are we to believe M waited to ask for the money?  Days?
Then Bond's already healed?  Already in Venice?  Already resigned from the service?  Just how long does it take for your old fella to get back in, uh, working order after an evening at the LeChiffre Cane Chair Emporium?  

And M's going to wait that long to ask where the money is?

And I'm supposed to see Vesper's death as a suicide for what purpose?  Apparently we find out in Episode Two, but…  

While I bought her suicide, being a fan of the book, there's a problem here.  By wrapping it in too much useless action, I found myself less interested in Vesper's reason for committing suicide than I was mortified by the filmmakers taking away her intent by shoving her into a chase sequence.  

In the book, she was in love with Bond and committed (there's the essential point) COMMITTED suicide.  She didn't take advantage of the situation on a spur of the moment.  She wasn't trapped into it.  She did what she felt she had to do.  By wrapping her intention in a shoot 'em up we were robbed of her chance to become the essential character in Bond's life that she should have been.

I know, fans of the series are screaming "but, but…" however, there's such a huge gap between what we were given and what that character deserved, that I was completely disappointed by her final exit.

And no matter how I tried to rationalize this decision, as I've spoken to people who haven't read the book, who had no expectations of this finale, they've consistently told me they were taken out of the film at almost exactly the same point.  

My son has one of those abhorrent wristwatches that beeps on the hour.  It went off twice during the film, because he forgot to turn the damn thing off.  Well, the amazing thing for me was, it seemed to have gone off minutes apart, literally.  Time, which to me matters immensely, did not even come to mind for two hours.  It stunned me that two hours had passed so quickly.  It became a touchstone for how really exceptional the film was, that I had been able to let go of that much time without even a second thought. Even my son's "goddammit" when he finally slammed the button and shut the thing off only served to emphasize how good a time I was having.

Then, sometime later, we came to the hospital sequence and suddenly I was sitting in a theatre.

Was it expectation?  Was it the fact I'd waited a lifetime for us to get to this part of the story?  Yes.  But it was also trepidation.  Would they stick to the ending I wanted or would they give Vesper an out?  They tried to do both, and failed.

And now to the VERY ending.

Well done.  Perfectly timed.  The perfect line, and an exceptional lead in to the next film.  One would truly hate to be Mr. White after the screen goes black.

So that's Casino Royale.  How good was it?  It was exceptional.  It's completely rewritten my opinions of the earlier films.  No longer will a Bond film "do", it will have to compare to this, to the best few of the series.

As to the ending, how much better it could have been is now in the hands of the next film.  They've given us hints that it's a direct follow up.  Well, this gives the filmmakers the chance to redeem themselves by filling in Vesper's motivation.  I pray they take it.

Grade: A

Copyright © 2006 Rob Cotton