Casino Royale

I was a little confused when Casino Royale was announced, having in my childhood seen the spoof version with Peter Sellers and Orson Welles from which Pink Floyd apparently ripped off ‘The Trial’ (and I was so impressed at Roger’s eclecticism!), but in the storm of publicity surrounding the film’s release, I soon found out both films were different treatments of Fleming’s very serious first Bond novel. Appropriately, this new adaptation is a ‘reboot’, taking us back to the beginning of Bond’s Double-0 career and openly dispensing with continuity by making the setting explicitly modern-day and keeping Judi Dench as M. Pierce Brosnan was sacked, and with him the slick, pretty and overall safe Bond of recent films (which persisted in Die Another Day despite its opening), replaced with Daniel Craig, whose troll-like countenance suggests thuggishness, grit and danger, and it seems many women are vociferously approving of the sex appeal this gives him.

And yes, there is more of a realistic edge to this Bond, less of the cheesy gadgets and the quips, more of the brutal, flailing fistfights and questions of whether killing in cold blood really affects these agents. But from the heart-racing free running sequence that follows the great theme song by Chris Cornell (why isn’t it being promoted like Madonna’s piece of crap was?), it’s clear that this is the same Bond despite the crusty veneer and the nosebleeds, still fully equipped with a character shield, still able to react in a split second and pull off things trained professionals in specialised fields might manage one in ten times even when exhausted, still able to survive car crashes and shrug off bullets (or nails) to the shoulder. But apparently Daniel Craig is much closer to the Bond Fleming wrote (I wouldn’t know) than even Connery, and given that a certain torture scene apparently really was in the book (to my surprise), I take it they are indeed fairly dark. And I have to say, he had a vulnerability that other Bonds have lacked, which made him much more likeable – part of that was the writing and direction, but it was also the performance: it would have been easy for him joking while being tortured to be incredibly false and irritating, but Craig did well.

But once more we come to the plot. On paper, it’s perhaps my favourite Bond concept, of those I know of. A high-stakes card game forms the centrepiece of the movie, with the players attempting to psychoanalyse one another, as well as, in some cases, trying to kill them. It’s so human, so far from the usual nuclear-warheads-aimed-at-Fort-Knox nonsense that I was completely drawn in by the idea. It had the potential to be more Sherlock Holmes than Incredible Hulk, which really appealed. However, the horrible scene introducing Vesper Lynd, the prettiest Bond girl in recent memory, but also amongst the most unconvincing as a character (all sassy attitude, vanity and then easy vulnerability), in which she and Bond psychoanalyse one another in a most unlikely manner, should have forewarned me. The level of mind-games was about that of a Naruto fight. Bond’s supposed to be a superb poker player and he doesn’t see an obvious nervous twitch is a double bluff? Psssh.

In the end, I have to say that welcome though making Bond human, open to being hurt, being distressed and being betrayed was, and fine though the production of the film was, its episodic plot and the way that most interesting ideas were not given sufficient time to develop into full bloom meant that the highlights were not, as hoped, tense moments of soul-searching or the locking of wits, but were the great set-pieces: the aforementioned free running, the awesome sight of an ancient Venice building crumbling, the engines of a jet plane blowing away a police car, were the adrenaline-fuelled highlights. The film was a brave attempt to make Bond more than that, but it didn’t quite succeed. A shame, because there was a lot of potential there.

The writers have said that they will continue with the emotional threads the film left dangling in Bond 22, and it’s possible a character mentioned towards the end will be the next villain. This sounds promising – but the truth is that leaving the concept this undeveloped left a rather unsatisfying sheen on this otherwise enjoyable movie.

Worth seeing, beyond a doubt. But I can’t say that I think many people would want to see it again and again.

And the product placement, with even a too-obvious cameo by Richard Branson, was just gratuitous.