Review: Casino Royale

A lot has been made of Daniel Craig as the new Bond, so I suppose I will throw in my two cents on that subject and get it out of the way. I think Daniel Craig is quite good as Bond, as long as you accept the fact that Bond is now a much dirtier, brutish secret agent. He can still be suave, but now it's a trained suaveness slapped onto a blue-collar frame. Whereas with Pierce Brosnan's Bond felt like someone from the upper crust of society who only got his hands dirty when he had to, Daniel Craig's Bond would prefer to loosen his collar as soon as possible and fight with his hands rather than with gadgets.

Personally, I like this new Bond. As several reviews have stated, and as several friends of mine have told me, this new Bond is more of a human being. His character actually develops throughout the movie, and we see much more of his vulnerabilities. There is also lots of witty banter between Bond and the Bond girl, and not the simple one-liners and sexual subtexts that most Bond movies substitute for real conversation, there's actual long dialogue that consists of several back and forth jabs that show Bond and the Bond girl truly connecting. Details like that really help sell the plot more than previous Bond movies have. Without having read up on the details of the production, my guess would be that a lot of this bears the stamp of Paul Haggis's contribution to the script.

The action is also much more physical in this new film and less reliant on gadgetry and special effects. The first major action sequence involves a foot chase through a construction site that borrows liberally from Jackie Chan movies. This is a welcome change from the bungee-cord hi-tech stunts that Bond did in previous films, for it makes for more exciting and believable action sequences, in my opinion.

The movie does have a few sticking points though. There is a plot twist in the movie, but the setup for the plot twist really takes forever and plods along. Unfortunately, it's one of those sequences where it doesn't make sense for so much time to be spent on something so mundane unless there is a plot twist involved, so when the twist happens it is far from a surprise. Also, the amount of Sony product placement was a little bit ridiculous. I certainly understand that Sony bought MGM and thus was ultimately the financier of the movie, and I understand that Sony's electronics division overall isn't doing too well so they need all the free advertisement they can get, but it was really egregious in this movie and detracted from the overall experience. Also, the addition of the Columbia studio logo at the beginning after the MGM studio logo wasn't really necessary, was it? While originally it was a UA logo that opened the Bond films, the MGM logo is really what people associate with the Bond films now, did Sony really need to insert the Columbia logo as well?

Aside from those relatively problems, overall the movie was quite good. It does restart the Bond franchise, with a younger, cruder Bond taking over, being more physical and hands-on than past Bonds. The stunt sequences feel more impressive because they are less pyrotechnic and special effects oriented, and driven more by raw stunt choreography and execution. It also presents Bond as more of a regular human, someone who is changed by his experiences throughout the movie. It's a great way to discover a new Bond.