REVIEW

Movie Review: Casino Royale (2006)

Written by Adam Blair
Published November 27, 2006
page 1 | 2 | 3

How can we identify with someone who seemingly can’t be hurt - and why should we worry about him? He even [SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] survives a poison-induced heart attack that would have put an ordinary human into a hospital for a week. He not only survives, but is back playing high-stakes poker in an hour’s time, looking very little the worse for wear.

With the previous Bonds, their cartoon-like ability to bounce back, Lazarus-like, from situation after situation was made at least partly contextual by the slightly sci-fi universe that both Bond and his ever-more-grandiose villains inhabited. The increasingly elaborate gadgets that Q supplied to Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan helped set this tone.

While Craig has a fairly cool cell phone/tracking device, as well as that handy-dandy portable defibrillator that shocks him back to life after the heart attack, the gizmos in Casino Royale are kept to a minimum. Craig’s Bond is Superman without the redeeming element of kryptonite and Batman without the elaborate crime-fighting tools - just your average un-killable spy. Again, why should we care about him?

Another miscalculation in Casino Royale is central to the story: Bond’s showdown with Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who has unwisely lost hundreds of millions of terrorist dollars playing the stock market and must win it back at the gaming tables before the bad guys kill him. This plot is lifted almost directly from Fleming’s Cold War-era novel of the same name, with today’s all-purpose evil, international terrorism standing in for Fleming’s bogeyman of Soviet Russia. In the book, Bond faces off with Le Chiffre at the baccarat table, but the filmmakers have updated this to Texas Hold ‘Em no-limit poker, familiar to anyone who, like me, has become addicted to Celebrity Poker Showdown.

The cinematic problem with Texas Hold ‘Em, which gives each player two face-down cards and then lets each one make the best hand they can from five common cards that are revealed one at a time, is that unless the audience knows what cards each player holds, and therefore knows whether a player is bluffing, winning or simply miscalculating, there’s no real suspense. I mean Alfred Hitchcock’s kind of suspense as opposed to simple surprise.

If, for example, the audience knows there’s a bomb under the table that will go off in five minutes, everything that keeps the film’s characters in the soon-to-explode room is a source of agony for the audience. However, if the audience is as ignorant as the characters, all they get is the surprise of a “boom” when the bomb goes off — a few seconds of shock versus minutes of involved suspense. [SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] We get a surprise when Bond finally defeats Le Chiffre, but because we don’t know what the players’ hole cards are, we are denied the pleasures of suspense.

page 1 | 2 | 3
Adam Blair is a professional writer/editor who earns his keep covering the business world. He blames his obsession with film on a high school job as a movie theater usher, where repeated viewings of such films as Airplane, The Shining and Friday the 13th placed his mental health in jeopardy. His musings and meanderings on film and other creative arts appear on his "Grin without a Cat" website at www.adamblairviews.com. He is THE source for movie and TV trivia among his family and friends, who nevertheless continue to associate with him.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Movie Review: Casino Royale (2006)
Published: November 27, 2006
Type: Review
Section: Video
Filed Under: Video: Adventure, Video: Action, Review, Books: Thriller, Video: Suspense and Mystery
Writer: Adam Blair
Adam Blair's BC Writer page
Adam Blair's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Adam Blair
Video: Adventure
Video: Action
Review
Books: Thriller
Video: Suspense and Mystery
All Video Articles
All Review articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — November 27, 2006 @ 09:24AM — jay

you're allowed your opinions but i disagree with pretty much everything you say. you are clearly too old and prefer everything to be traditional bond. get with the times and understand that bond needs to modernise and has done so. successfully.

#2 — November 27, 2006 @ 09:29AM — Triniman [URL]

They had to get away from the over-the-top, cartoonish feel. I applaud them for trying something different.

#3 — November 27, 2006 @ 11:58AM — bunz

As stated above, once again you are entitled to your own opinion, but in response to your beef with Bond's indestructability in the movie, it appeared to me that his mistakes/vulnerabilites were much more apparent than any superhuman-ness. In actuality, it seemed like they were trying to stress this even more as a rookie agent, that had just reached "double O" status. And as for your peeve of not finding out Bond's "tell" as evidence to his godliness, it seems like you are merely nit-picking and finding reasons not to like the movie. You obviously don't enjoy change and are clearly in your 40's or 50's and lack an open mind.

#4 — November 27, 2006 @ 13:55PM — Brad Blake

I enjoyed it in an escapist way, but it wasn't much better than Miami Vice, which I sadly wasted two hours on a few months ago.
Craig has potential, but we need more of his sense of humor, his personality, etc.
Nice and accurate review!

#5 — November 28, 2006 @ 14:23PM — handyguy [URL]

Especially if you can see it under the right circumstances - a big bright theater screen, a good sound system, a large and appreciative audience - I think this is not just the best Bond in 4 decades, but the best action film in quite some time.

Several of the action sequences, especially that early chase through a construction site into an embassy, are just plain amazing, and completely thrilling. Craig is near perfect.

This may not be up to the best Connery films and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but it puts to shame all those tacky Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan extravaganzas. The only spy movie of recent vintage to come close is The Bourne Supremacy, which is fantastically well directed but doesn't have quite the same Big Pop Event factor.

Sorry you were disappointed.

#6 — November 28, 2006 @ 17:01PM — Todd

It could have used 10 minutes of editting, but beyond that was hands-down the best Bond since Connery left.

#7 — November 29, 2006 @ 00:22AM — Auburn

I agree with the review; this latest version of James Bond is absolutely boring. There's nothing special about the movie at all. Perhaps it's time to kill off the Bond franchise.

#8 — March 8, 2007 @ 14:14PM — LSU

Good review!

Craig was miscast as Bond.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/56284)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments