Merrick here...


Yeah…here we go.

Here come the reviews.

I won’t bore you with an endless preamble framing or contextualizing a film that…at this point…needs neither framing or contextualizing.

Here’s the review – probably one of many we’re likely to receive for this film. It’s by Toke, and we appreciate him taking the time to send it in. The short & sweet: “good but not great.”

VERY LIGHT SPOILERS!!
Probably nothing you don't already know!!

Managed to score some tickets for a preview screening of Casino Royale tonight at the Odeon on Leicester Square, London. Never been to one of these things before, security was as tight as it's been on our planes lately with full metal detector scans (for cameras) and everyone having their mobile phones bagged up and given back after the showing. When are these studios going to realise that it's not cam-job pirate DVDs that are lowering cinema attendance but a severe lack of decent flicks this year? Anyway, I digress...

Film opens with the black & white scene that features in the trailer, but sets up the mood for the rest of the film nicely. It's no secret that this is a very different kind of Bond flick, but only now can I see how different it is. There's no super-threat to the world that only Bond can save us from, just a lot of terrorist-money on the line. Le Chiffre is certainly a Bond villain, but Mads Mikkelson plays the part with a surprising amount of vulnerability; He's probably the most 'human' Bond villain in the series yet. Whether you prefer this kind of portrayal will depend on your personal taste...myself, I found him believable but yet no way near as imposing as previous bad guys.

Of course, whether Casino Royale can truly be considered part of the same canon as the Bond films that preceded it is debatable. Daniel Craig's James Bond shares very little in common with Brosnan's, Connery's or Moore's. But yet he fleshes the role out well, making you believe that this is Bond 1.0 - rough, reckless, emotional and unpredictable. By the time you're half-way through the film, you accept Craig in the role, even though you might not be convinced you're watching a Bond film. Credit to him though, he brings a certain physicality to the role (especially in the fight scenes) that we've not seen before. Craig's Bond acts with his fists, rather than fancy gadgets, which are surprisingly thin on the ground.

Casino Royale is fairly light on action too, with the film bookended by a fantastic one-on-one chase with a surprise ending and a great finale in Venice. There's a couple of shorter action sequences in-between (including a half-decent scene at an airport), but Casino Royale seems more concerned with characters and dialogue rather than huge big-budget action-packed set pieces. Again, whether you prefer this approach will be a case of personal opinion...given that the entire middle third in the film focusses on the poker game at the Casino Royale, you might find yourself wanting a few more explosions and a higher body count.

But you can see what the Bond team were trying for. They've wanted to dig a little deeper into the character of James Bond - The Man, rather than James Bond - The Invincible Secret Agent. Whereas half the fun of the franchise was to watch Bond handle most situations with relative ease and experience, Craig's Bond seems a little out-of-his-league at times which gives the film a new sense of tension and danger. Specific incidents in this film resonate with the audience because you know how they may have/definitely contributed to forming the character of Bond much further down the line.

Performances are strong throughout. Craig certainly doesn't look the part but once you're into the story, you can see why that was the whole idea....if he looked like his predecessors, it would have made the film a lot harder to swallow. Judi Dench as M is as good as ever, but I wasn't as hooked on Eva Green as previous Bond-girls...she's certainly easy on the eye enough, but her self-confidence comes off more irritating than seductive. Once again, I think that was the whole idea.

Other highlights include some amazing stunt-work, especially in the opening half hour, with some excellent one-liners delivered throughout from all characters. The torture scene is horrible and yet hilarious in equal measure, you have to see it to understand. The opening graphic sequence is classic Bond. The direction is good from start to finish, you can see that Martin Campbell has treated Casino Royale with a far more delicate hand than some of the previous directors. It's not arty, but it's not an assault on the senses either.

I found Casino Royale to be good but not great. It's a good reset point for the franchise and on that note it's an excellent re-introduction to the Bond universe. And yet, the film never aspires to reach the level of greatness of its history...in simple terms, it's better than Die Another Day, but nowhere near as good as Goldeneye and it is far outside the realms of any film from the Connery era. It'll attract new fans and put off old ones in equal measure, but it's definitely worth a look. Just try to take Casino Royale on its own merits and you'll find a good old-fashioned spy flick executed slickly but with a knowing glint in its eye.

Oh, and the scene at the airport, in front of the metal detectors - See if you can spot who has the tiniest cameo appearance ever.

If you use this, call me Toke.