Casino Royale in Review

Few pop cultural phenomena prove that the memory deceives quite like the James Bond series. Indeed, if previous generations were to be believed, the 007 saga was an effortlessly excellent affair peppered with Coward-esque bon mots and performances that recall Laurence Olivier in his pomp.

In reality, Bond on the big screen has been a hit-or-miss affair almost from the beginning. And since the last film, Die Another Day, was the sort of miss that suggests the Brocolli/Wilson producer team would have a hard time hitting a cow's arse with a banjo, it's lately looked as if Bond's as much a relic of yesteryear as the Cold War.

Whether Daniel Craig could restore the series to high estate has interested many and obsessed some ever since the news broke that the role of Bond was being handed to a serious actor. In Craig, the Bond series has not only uncovered the natural successor to Edinburgh's most famous milkman, but it's arguably found a presence closest to the one suggested by Ian Fleming's novels.

Turning the clock back to the beginning of Bond's career in international espionage, we start off seeing how he secured his '00' status. Then from the grainy black-and-white of a Prague winter it's off to the searing heat of Madagascar where Craig cuts his teeth on the sort of action sequence that would bring Vic Armstrong out in a cold sweat. From there, the newly-minted super-spy embarks on a globe-spanning trip that takes in the Bahamas, Miami and Eastern Europe as he tries to unsettle Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a debt-ridden terrorist bankroller who hopes to balance the books by winning a valuable poker tournament. Bond's hopes of bringing the villain to heel depend on his card sharp skills and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a Foreign Affairs accountancy type with a head for numbers and a body for... well, you can guess the rest. As beautiful as Eva Green is, her character is a cut-above your average Bond girl. In many ways, Lynd is the most interesting woman Bond has encountered since he got hitched to Diana Rigg's Tracy Di Vicenzo.

In its reach for realism, Bond's crazy gadgets are ditched. The bad guys are more credible, with the volcano-inhabiting, cat-stroking megalomaniacs replaced by a combination of African despots and faceless European types. Not that Bond has altered too much. Just as director Martin Campbell reinvigorated the franchise with GoldenEye, here he matches the excess of Bond with the stark reality that has made Jason Bourne Hollywood's spy du jour.

Regardless of whether you're a long-standing fan of the series or someone whose first encounter with Bond was the dire Die Another Day, Casino Royale's a film to restore your faith in Britain's top spy.

(FILM4)

The fire of controversy in casting Craig was doused when he exploded onto the screen with brilliance. Do you agree? Post your review here.

This is my original review of Casino Royale (2006) from MI6. My opinions have changed a lot since then -- largely I think the film has too many meaningless action setpieces that merely slow things down rather than contribute to the story. Nonetheless, this is my offical review:


The Trick Isn't Getting Enough Caviar
A Review of Casino Royale by Fairbairn-Sykes

Before I go into a review of the latest film in the James Bond 007 franchise from EON Productions, let's get a few things out of the way. One: Yes, there's a new Bond, and yes he's blond. Two: Yes, the film is about the beginning of Bond's career and yes it's set in the present day. This is called a reboot of a franchise. Look it up on Wikipedia, I'm sure it'll say something interesting.
Meanwhile, the movie itself is quite good. Scratch that. Very good. Scratch that, the best Bond film in 37 years. Why is it so good? Well, for one, the acting is phenomenal. Daniel Craig excels in bringing out some of the most essential qualities of James Bond's character, the main one, of course, being that he is, essentially, a killer. For another thing, the plot is excellent, and this is no surprise – if you watch the opening titles carefully, you'll note the credit "Based on the novel by Ian Fleming", something a Bond film hasn't been in some time. And, fancy this, despite updating the 1953 novel to 2006, the film remains remarkably accurate to the book.
In the spirit of this new found returning of Bond to his literary roots, I've decided to review the film based on a quote from the literary Bond. Said in Chapter 7 of the novel of Dr. No, Bond claims that the ingredients of an exciting adventure are "physical exertion, mystery and a ruthless enemy", and so on these criteria I will review the film.
PHYSICAL EXERTION (ACTION): The original novel of Casino Royale (a highly suggested read, by the way) isn't exactly high on action: the only such sequences we get are a few assassins blowing themselves up, a car chase, and a torture scene. In a movie, especially a Bond movie, this is not acceptable, so the first half of the film has little to do with the novel, and instead satisfies our appetite for destruction, so to speak, with such sequences as an amazing free running chase (think recent Nike ads), another chase in an airport, and a finale in a sinking Venetian palazzo. Oh, and they kept the car chase and the torture sequence as well (quite a shock really, if you know what that torture is). These exciting scenes allow us to swallow the more serious parts of the film later on. One unique thing I noticed about Casino Royale is that Craig's Bond gets cuts, sprains, wounds, etc. He even needs time to heal. So, for physical exertion and making Bond a real person, I rate the action sequences 8 out of 10.
MYSTERY (PLOT): At first the plot of Casino Royale seems rather lowkey compared to other 007 offerings: a powerful banker called Le Chiffre (French for "The Cipher") bankrolls the world's terrorists but loses his client's money in a stock market gamble. In order to win it back, he must win a poker game at the Casino Royale. Bond must defeat him to make him desperate enough to accept sanctuary from his employer's wrath and give information to MI6. Simple, right? However, throw in the angle of this being Bond's near-first OO assignment, and one of the best Bond girls in years (37, to be exact), and more plot twists than The Da Vinci Code, and you've got yourself one hell of a plotline. I don't want to give out spoilers, but if you haven't read the novel, the film twists and turns so sharply sometimes you wish you had a roadmap. For keeping us shocked and guessing, and not involving giant space lasers, I'll give the mystery a 7 out of 10.
A RUTHLESS ENEMY (DRAMA): This has traditionally been the weak spot of the Bond franchise (in film, at least) — creating believable characters, making you feel these characters are in jeopardy, and making you invested in them. Surprisingly, this is where Casino Royale shines. Maybe it has something to do with the screenwriter being Paul Haggis (writer of Crash, last year's Best Picture). Frankly put, Daniel Craig shines as a younger Bond, eager to kill, cold, ruthless, exactly like Ian Fleming described him in the novels 53 years ago. However, the real performance in the film is the stunningly beautiful actress Eva Green as Bond girl Vesper Lynd. This one can act! Vesper has real personality, wit, charm, depth as a character – she is the original Bond girl, and the one responsible for making him who he is. Eva performs the role beautifully. Mads Mikkelsen, a Danish actor, turns in a suitably creepy performance as the sadistic villain Le Chiffre, and Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini are surprise delights as Bond allies Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis, of CIA and DGSE respectively. After the silly action scenes are out of the way, and the plot from the novel begins, the movie never loses sight of tension and suspense, and builds to not one, but four expertly played dramatic climaxes. Its like sex only with explosions and British people. I give Casino Royale's truly ruthless enemy a 9 out of 10.
How to sum up Casino Royale? Sure, some people won't accept a blond James Bond, some people will notice the lack of Moneypenny and Q and complain on the internet – but I for one welcome the lack of silly jokes and frivolous gadgets and see this film as a remarkable return to form. It's really an excellent film, even if you aren't regularly a Bond fan, any fan of good movies will be sure to like it. As a fan of the novel, it excited me that so much was kept in from the source material, a rare occurrence for a Bond film.
It isn't that Casino Royale has more explosions, excitement or better special effects than Die Another Day or any of Pierce Brosnan's films, it's just that for once, a Bond film is based on a solid foundation of a good story, a good script, a good director, and very, very, good actors. As Bond says in the novel, "The trick isn't getting enough caviar, but enough toast to go with it."
Casino Royale (2006) 8 out of 10.

As special Bonus Features, here included as well are my reviews for CR '67 and CR '54. Again, these are legacy repostings saved from the now lost MI6 Archives:

PLAYING RED INDIANS or Wait... What?
Fairbairn-Sykes Reviews a Bunch of Stuff put on Celluloid passing for a Movie

My gf was interested in seeing it, so we sat down to watch it. I left the experience the way I leave every time watching CR '67 -- with a massive headache, depressed, and a little angry. There are bits and pieces of the movie that are funny -- but that's all they ever are: bits and pieces. The movie never coalesces into anything. The beginning is just hard to sit through, and the end is a complete mess. In the middle we've got Peter Sellers and Orson Welles and something at least vaguely resembling a recognizable plot. There are some gags that are funny, but most of them are simply bizarre or tedious. It's a really horrid movie. But then, I've never been a huge fan of the sixties farce style comedies that through money and spectacle and stars at the screen instead of actual effort. (Death of Classic Hollywood - The Musical). My dad loves movies like The Magic Christian, but for me they never work, especially the "throw people on the screen in total chaos and hope its funny" endings, like here and also Blazing Saddles.

For fun, or torture, I'll rate CR '67 the way I rate all Bond films, even though it's totally inapplicable.
PHYSICAL EXERTION (ACTION): Actually there is a surprisingly large amount of fights, chase scenes, and explosions in CR '67. The problem is that I have no idea what's happening and don't really care and neither does anyone else involved in the picture. 4/10
MYSTERY (PLOT): So basically, this movie makes no sense. Even the vague, strung-together plot holds weakly. Like, for example, Vesper recruits baccarat expert Evelyn Tremble to defeat Le Chiffre in a game. Who is Le Chiffre? Why do we need this done? It's only in a later scene that Mata Bond learns that Le Chiffre works for SMERSH and is out of money because he's a gambler, thus motivating the earlier Sellers scene. It's badly, badly, badly assembled, and of course because they never finished the Sellers section, the movie suddenly switches gears in the third act and has an entirely different plot involving a UFO, Woody Allen, and a bunch of other stuff that makes no sense. 0/10
A RUTHLESS ENEMY (DRAMA): It's a comedy. And a bad one at that. *Sigh* So many good actors thrown at the screen for such a huge load of crap. 0/10.

The only thing I really like about CR '67 is Burt Bacharach's score, which is pretty damned good in places. Also, the Mata Bond/German Expressionist section may make NO sense, but is at least funny. And there are times when I'm watching the Sellers/Welles baccarat game that I think I might be watching an actual movie or something.
But thank god they dubbed Ursula Andress' voice in Dr. No eh?

In the novel of Casino Royale, which this version is credited as being "suggested by", Bond is accused by Le Chiffre of "playing Red Indians". This film took the statement to heart, and features a tribe of War Indians paratrooping into the casino during the final fight scene.

Casino Royale (1967) -- 1 out of 10.

'Good Americans Were Fine People'
Fairbairn-Sykes' Review of Climax!'s Casino Royale

The 1954 version of Casino Royale is something of an anomaly. Made just a year after the novel was published, it is far closer to Fleming's era than the vast majority of Bond films made. In terms of plot, it follows the novel very closely, reproducing memorable incidents and concepts quite well. It is in the realm of the characters that the movie strays off-track from its literary inspiration. The main point of contention is that Bond, Jimmy Bond, is an American working for the CIA.
So, the question is -- is Bond still Bond if he's not British?
PHYSICAL EXERTION (ACTION): There's not a lot of action in this hour-long TV movie. But then again, there wasn't a lot of action in the original novel. The low-budget, live-television nature of the production scales it back even further. The bombing attempt on Bond's life becomes a drive-by shooting (Bond seeks cover behind a fake palm tree), the car chase is gone, and the torture scene's content is dialed down for prime-time audiences. As such, the excitement of the show must come from something other than explosions and property destruction. 2/10
MYSTERY (PLOT): By and large the plot is the same as the original Fleming novel. Most of the changes have to do with the character of Vesper Lynd, combined with Rene Mathis here to create Valerie Mathis. She's revealed from the start to be working for the Russians, with the surprise twist here being that she's actually a double for the French -- this reverse of the novel's allegiances help's give the TV version a nice happy ending for the American family audience. Also, Valerie has a prior romance with Bond, and because of Barry Nelson's tough, private eye style portrayal, it all seems very Casablanca-esque. Finally, the ending has Bond killing Le Chiffre and ending up with Valerie in his arms, a kind've trite American ending -- But, it's all told well and in a single hour and at the end of the day Bond's playing baccarat not poker, so it's a better adaptation of the novel than any other version of Casino Royale. 7/10
A RUTHLESS ENEMY (DRAMA): The cast assembled for this televised Bond is actually not bad. Linda Christian does a good turn as the girl, even if she's overly melodramatic in places. I believe the friendship between Barry Nelson's "Bond" and Michael Pate's "Leiter", but as I said earlier, I wish they were reversed. Pate gives a good go at being classy, yet tough, wehereas Nelson is basically just playing the standard American hero -- very Bogart. It's funny, they made Bond American in order to appeal to the American audience, and yet that ended up missing what made Bond so popular when he came to movie screens eight years later -- that he was British. The British-ness of Bond made him new and exciting, just like Beatles music a few years later. Also, for Americans it was new that a Brit could be tough and masculine, instead of the somewhat effete British gentleman stereotype. The best actor of the bunch is, of course, Peter Lorre, who is a perfect Le Chiffre and will always be my mind's eye version of the character. In the end, there are a few dramatic moments in the show, but the low production values and live television aspect at times drain the drama. The card game, which lasts almost a third of the program, is well done in many regards -- it starts out sort've dull and bland, but actually gets more exciting and dramatic as the stakes get higher, which is generally how gambling goes. The drama in CR '54 gets a 7/10 from me.
In the end, CR '54 is a great little curiousity. The fifties mood, Peter Lorre's performance, moments like the cane-gun, and the fact that they're actually playing baccarat make it a good adaptation of the novel -- on the other hand Bond as an American and the changes to Vesper/Valerie's character make it a little disarming. It's main legacy is that it stopped EON from being able to make Casino Royale until 2006, and enabled the production of the odious 1967 version. But whatever you think of it, it's historical value makes it a must-see for any fans of Bond, especially literary Bond.
In the original novel, when Bond meets his American contact, Felix Leiter, he reflects that "good Americans were fine people", and I think the conclusion I must come to is that even an American can be James Bond if you keep the character and his world intact.

Casino Royale (1954) -- 5 out of 10.

I despise Casino Royale. One of its many problems is that nuVesper doesn't look or sound like the character I picture when I read the book. To me, Vesper Classic looks like this:



Rose Byrne had the look, but maybe not the acting chops. Whereas Eva Green looks like this ex-employee I had to 'let go':

As I recall I suggested Louise Monot for Vesper not long after joining Mi6. In retrospect, she might have had the same challenge with mastering the accent as Eva.

But I agree that Green didn't conform with the person I had in mind upon reading the book.

Green was too dominant and self-sufficient to play Vesper. They needed someone who could better portray her vulnerability and mental decline, rather than all the gender-neutral-workplace posturing crap on the train. Someone more distant and unobtainable, like Kim Novak in VERTIGO.

Sharky wrote:

Someone more distant and unobtainable, like Kim Novak in VERTIGO.

Yep, that's key, and that's what Fleming meant by his notorious rape remark; Vesper would always be secretive and unknowable to Bond regardless of their physical intimacy. That was her attraction and why he didn't expect to become bored with her.

You guys have got it spot-on. After they gutted each other on the train, I found it hard to believe Bond found Vesper a mystery, or all that unknowable, in the film.

That being said, I do think the writers could've made their chosen approach work. The dinner scene in the film is where the ice began to melt some - Bond recognized that Vesper was tied to another man, and they both acknowledged the showy nature of their conversation ('it was a good line' / 'but you're laughing at it', etc). I think if, at that point, the stagy dialogue between them had died, that would've been super-effective. As the pair grow closer after Bond's torture, they would become more real with one another.

But no. They then went on to discuss armour and re-birth and never holding honest jobs, and I went on to believe they weren't really in love.

With this film and its sequel, I really don't like how they've written Bond to be a childish bitch. I know he's a fresh 00 Agent, but that doesn't mean he has to act like a 16-year-old. Plus, with an extensive military background, you'd think he would be disciplined. Why would they hire him if he weren't?

Between both of the films, he disobeys orders like it's going out of style, kills people from his own agency because he's mad at the world, gets his allies killed because of pure ignorance, and just goes off the hook doing ridiculous bullshit (riding a motorcycle around the docks to save Camille, for no fucking reason).

I know they're aiming these films at teens, but does that mean Bond has to act like a teen, too? I guess so.

The only scenes in which he acts like James Bond, to me, are: in Dryden's office (CR), at the casino (CR), getting pissed on Mathis' plane (QOS), and handing Yusef over to the authorities (QOS) -- although, wasn't that pulled straight from a Bourne flick?

I'm hoping they'll use a "lighter" character in the next film. I'd rather have Bond cracking tit jokes and trying to bed every woman he comes into contact with, at this point.

There were parts of Casino Royale I enjoyed, and parts I wanted to scoop out my own eyeballs rather than watch. The shower scene for one. Completely bemused me. Consequently, I find it a rather confusing film to discuss. Because part of me wants to like it. When it's good, it's good. Unfortunately, Green is painful to watch, partly because she can't act her way out of a wet paper bag, but mainly because she has a perpetual look on her face of someone who has just had two week old cat litter thrust underneath their nose. She can't smile; she grimaces. And it gets so damn annoying.

The ending is the particularly messy part for me. It's almost as though the film has ended, and then they tag an extra 30 minutes on. It has that 'afterthought' feel to it. Which is probably due to poor pacing and/or poor editing and/or poor script writing. They allow the energy of the film to die just before the end, then expect you to get a second wind.

Plus - seriously - powder blue budgie smugglers? Not a good look. And this is me saying this. But when a guy gets out of the water wearing something like that, I should not be thinking about how much his ears stick out. There is something inherently wrong with that.

So I'm no further forward really after this ramble. I love it. I hate it.

To quote Craig Ferguson:

"He's waxed! When he comes out of the water in a speedo he looks like a gay dolphin!"

Green's accent sucks. Especially in the train scene. Maybe she was dehydrated or something, but she sounds like she's damaged her vocal cords. That or she realised the "Rolex/Omega/Beautiful" line was a crock of shit.

I loathe the stupid scene with the dinner jackets.

Ravenstone wrote:

Unfortunately, Green is painful to watch, partly because she can't act her way out of a wet paper bag, but mainly because she has a perpetual look on her face of someone who has just had two week old cat litter thrust underneath their nose. She can't smile; she grimaces. And it gets so damn annoying.

Completely agree, Ravester.



Eliminate her...

Casino Royale (2006) - 10/10
I somehow knew, even after seeing some Bond films drop and rise for this new list, that the battle for number one was still going to be between Goldfinger and Casino Royale. But in the end, by that much, Casino Royale retains the number one spot on my list. Firstly, there is Daniel Craig, who is second only to Sean Connery in my mind. From the very first frame we see him in, Craig simply is James Bond. But this Bond is a little tougher than the rest; Craig’s Bond is a true killer, one who almost seems to get a hint of pleasure from it. He doesn’t go into anti-hero territory, but it is enough to see there is a different kind of working going on in this Craig’s Bond’s mind. This trait is something I think only Craig possesses and is truly a phenomenal one. The believability in Craig’s Bond is something I also admire. Where some Bonds didn’t emasculate some of Bond’s traits, Craig nails all of them. But Casino Royale doesn’t stop at a fantastic Bond. The rest of the cast is great, as well. Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd is one of my favorite Bond girls in the series. Le Chiffre is played subtly by Mads Mikkelsen, but his last moments are incredibly menacing. Mathis is a strong “ally”, as well. The action scenes are not only some of my favorites in the series, but some of my favorite of all time, barring no film. And then there is that torture scene. I’ve noticed over the years that it often gets some bashing from people who would’ve preferred the book’s version. But to me, Casino Royale’s torture scene (despite being dissimilar from the book) takes the cake for my favorite scene in a Bond film. It’s brutal, terrifying and uncomfortably funny all in one; I truly can’t think of any other scene in any movie for that manner that has had me more on the edge of my seat. Casino Royale is not only my favorite Bond film, but my personal favorite film of all time.

A talented chap named November wrote that 'EON took my favourite novel and used it as a tampon.' I find myself in complete agreement.

ambler wrote:

A talented chap named November wrote that 'EON took my favourite novel and used it as a tampon.' I find myself in complete agreement.

I had no idea Babs was quite that freaky...

I didn't mind Eva Green but Solange was an animated menstrual cramp.

At least Valenka almost had her arm lopped off (getting a cutlass to the arm seems to be some serious African dark justice, check out the first few minutes of Hitman).

The good ol' CR train scene.

"You got a nice ass, Jimmy."

"Cheers."

It went something like that from memory. Dreadful.

I think the Omega scene bothered me more than anything else. Regular product placement was no longer enough, they needed to incorporate it into the dialogue as well? :x

I never really had a problem with that Omega bit.

The only dialogue that I find annoying is when Bond is trying to calm Vesper down with naughty humor. Could have been handled differently I think.

Otherwise I think CR is a great entry for the series. Roughly in the middle of the top ten Bond flicks.

And I believe the shower scene with Vesper was very much influenced by some suggestions made by DC, so I guess we need to lay some of the blame with him for that one.

Suppose I'll be the voice of dissent here and say I'm quite fond of "Casino Royale."

The real reason I think "Casino Royale" is a success is its second act. I really like Prague as a location. It looked nice on camera and wasn't as dreary as some of the "Quantum of Solace" locales. I was also quite fond of how it was without a true action set piece, apart from the stairwell fight (which I really liked). I think the card game was very well put together. It was nice to see something tense that didn't involve chases or explosions.

The first and third acts of the film are a little shaky for me, however. They seem to be carried by action and those action pieces don't do much for me. The parkour was cool, and probably the highlight of the film in terms of set pieces, but the airport bit and the sinking house just felt superfluous to me. The PTS, however, was awesome.

I agree with the comment that Green's Vesper wasn't as vulnerable as Fleming's, but I still liked her. The exchange on the train and in the taxi to Hotel Splendide are two of my favorite scenes in recent memory of the franchise. Plus she's hot and has nice tits.

If "Bond 23" follows the formula of "Casino Royale," I'll likely find it to be a success. Even though it was a little more gritty than fun, it was never as dour or as frantic as "Quantum of Solace." When "Casino Royale" isn't bogged down by tacked on action bits, I feel it's among the class of recent big-budget action flicks, and I wouldn't mind seeing "Bond 23" follow suit.

I basically agree, JW, although I'm more wholeheartedly supportive of CR than you. It's got a few flaws, but is still the best Bond film since OHMSS, and I put it at No.2 overall.

CR is your n°2 overall? :x

Nothing wrong with a dissenting voice. Casino Royale is in my top 3 as well - the best Bond film since OHMSS. I can understand some of the arguments against it, but many others are just bollocks ;) .

BTW, Wade, the second act was filmed in Karlovy Vary, not Prague. And it's Green, not Byrne, who plays Vesper, unless you've been looking at Byrne's naughty audition tape.

This is the 2nd Bond movie I ever watched at the pictures and I remember enjoying myself immensely when seeing this with my brother and his friend. The action sequences were splendid, the card game was tense and finally, we got to see a Bond who was vulnerable, hot-headed and most of all, human. Glad they brought back Martin Campbell to inject some panache back into the franchise. :cheers: