It has been two months since Casino Royale debuted on U.S. movie screens. What's left to be said?

Here's something. When I've done my reviews of Bond movies the past decade, I'll admit I've been very enthusiastic and, in the end, gave them better grades than most of them deserved. (One exception: Die Another Day, where I awarded the lowest rating among HMSS reviewers.)

As a first generation fan, you want the movies to live up to the legacy. There were things to like (at least I thought so) in the Pierce Brosnan movies: little moments which reminded you of why you became a fan in the first place. However, over time, the realization sank in it wasn't as good as you thought.

Casino Royale, on the other hand, hasn't generated those feelings. I went into seeing the film with an open mind. I had seen Munich, and it was pretty evident that Daniel Craig was a fine actor. As James Bond, Craig won me over immediately. The first scene where Bond liquidates a traitorous MI6 operative (with a flashback to his first kill) was riveting yet retained just a hint of humor.

The main thing I was looking for in the credits was whether the filmmakers would actually acknowledge the source material. Finally, there it was: Based on the Novel by Ian Fleming. You can look it up: that was only the second such credit, with Dr.No being the other. Other films, even those few that were faithful or semi-faithful adaptations, only had ``Ian Fleming's''' before the title. In any case that made me feel better; I had been suspicious after looking at the movie poster (which only referenced Ian Fleming's James Bond 007).

There's not a lot of point of doing an in-depth analysis. Others have done plenty of that. It's just finally after hearing how EON always goes back to the original material for inspiration, they actually did something about it for an entire movie.

I had some misgivings about the four-year course this film took. It seemed like EON was going through the equivalent of a mid-life crisis. I still don't like how the principals characterize the original novel; they made it sound like ``Bond Begins'' and was an origin story. The novel took place in 1951 and Bond had been an Double-O agent for several years. It sounded more like an excuse for Michael G. Wilson to re-use his original idea for The Living Daylights (back when EON didn't have the rights to Fleming's Casino Royale novel).

I don't know if EON can sustain this momentum in the next movie. Daniel Craig looks like a can't-miss 007. Then again, 25 years ago, it seemed like EON got it with For Your Eyes Only, the most serious Roger Moore Bond. Twenty years ago, some fans thought Timothy Dalton was also a can't-miss Bond but his second outing, Licence to Kill, derailed his Bond career.

In the end, none of that matters. At least this once, I can give a grade and not regret it later.

Grade: A.

Copyright © 2006 Bill Koenig

Mr. Koenig had previously published an article with HMSS regarding legendary film director Howard Hawks' aborted plan bring Ian Fleming's best-selling novel Casino Royale to the silver screen. You can read about it here.