Finally, a James Bond film that I would enjoy even if it weren’t a James Bond film. Nothing against the twenty+ other films (depending on if one counts the unofficial Bond films) but although they were all entertaining and full of visual appeal (e.g., Sean Connery) I can’t honestly say I ever was interested in the characters or storylines. There were a few elements I knew I could count on: an over-the-top opening sequence, Bond flirting with and/or bedding a bad girl, and silly quips and/or character names. With these things, I would work harder to suspend my disbelief to buy into the film’s fantasy. Thoughtfully, “Casino Royale” pays homage to the franchise but doesn’t follow exactly in its footsteps. Although it is a Bond film, its back to basics action and storyline are in line with more recent spy films such as the “Bourne Identity” series.
Bond is an interesting character in this script. If Timothy Dalton had the opportunity to play this incarnation of Bond with this script, perhaps his tenure may have been extended. Although I have enjoyed Pierce Brosnan as Bond, I appreciate the grittiness that Dalton and now Daniel Craig have brought to the role. If all I wanted was another bigger-is-better action film, I would rent “Mission: Impossible III,” or worse yet “Terminator III,” and so seeing the balance of action and some character development is refreshing. Royale’s Bond is still mysterious, but less of a caricature and more engaging, thanks to both Craig’s performance and good source material.
I could go on and on about the various details that everyone else will cover like casting choices and plotlines, but suffice it to say, this is my favorite Bond film so far. This is due to the fact that I would have liked this film without the name of James Bond, the vodka martinis or M. It’s a film that can stand on its own instead of relying on its predecessors — ironic as this film is technically a prequel and, in the Bond timeline, predates them all.