Merrick here...

...with two more looks at CASINO ROYALE. Both seem to be well reasoned & level headed, pointing out the film's shortcomings while still really enjoying the movie. I'm really looking forward to it myself, although I'm still quite irritated by Judi Dench's presence. Sure, previous iterations of her character remained static through past reBondings -- but CASINO ROYALE is more than a reBonding, it's more like a rebirth. Why bring baggage?

Ah well, we are where we are. And, thus far, it sounds like we're fortunate to have a pretty cool movie to look forward to. Both reviews reference the film's brutality, an element I hoped would be maintained back when reviewed the script.

First up: Motta 80.

HI guys,

Went to Casino Royale friday night in London. Good film, great for a Bond film - though I'm not a fan of the franchise on the whole. Haven't sent you guys a review since Melinda And Melinda but in full awards season mode now so might try and send a couple more soon. Anyway.

CRAIG IS NOT BOND. THANK GOD!

Casino Royale is a massive surprise. Not because it is a good Bond film - though it is the most satisfying of the series since Connery's first bow out - but because it opens the franchise out.

MILD SPOILERS - NOT PLOT RELATED

Although the film sets up classic Bond staples this is a film of raw brutal action, incredibly stunts and real characters. There are no charicatures, there is no dodgy CGI, there are basically no gadgets. And the film is all the better for it.

This is a real world Bond. A well written action film with intelligent, well-thought out characterisation, that just happens to be Bond.

Daniel Craig has been accused of not being Bond. And he isn't. And that's good. Because Bond, as Craig's detractors seem to see him, is a cartoon. His world is a cartoon world of supervillains, easy women, maniacal plots and ludicrous gadgets. Not any more. Craig is a great reinvention for the character because he does something Brosnan, Moore, Lazenby and Dalton could never do - he brings a genuine feeling of danger to the role. It was not necessarily the other actors' fault they didn't, they were playing the cartoon Bond. Craig is playing the real world Bond and you sure as hell wouldn't want to meet him.

Sure the settings are lavish as always, the woman are beautiful, but this is grounded in a way that could really open the franchise up. And if it upsets fans of Die Another Day and recent outings, that's good, because they were poor, generic, risable jokes. Fun, perhaps, but there was no meat there.

Casino Royale also boosts some of the best action sequences I've seen on film in years. The free-running sequence and a sequence in an airport are superb - up there with the car chases in the two Bourne films. Truly exhilarating. A word I'm not sure has ever been attributable to a Bond film before.

It is not without it's flaws. Bizarrely it is both too long and moves too quickly! Key plot points are often thrown out and resolved so fast you wonder why the filmmakers bothered to include them. But the biggest problem is you can feel the time. It is nearly two and a half hours and it feels it. The first 30 minutes flies by but then it slows and in places all but halts completely as the pace gets lost in complex plotting. I feel churlish complaining about complex plotting. The Bond franchise rarely could be accused of such and overall Casino Royale benefits from its set-ups and characterisation but, boy, it goes on.

Overall a good film and a great Bond film. Craig and the filmmakers have brought a surprisingly fresh take and reinvented the character. It gives the you the ability to ignore the existence of the previous films, and that is not a bad thing. However, it's a little too full of itself - like a kid with a new toy - and it will be interesting to see if Eon have the guts to do the same again on the next one when they don't have Fleming source material to lead them.

Have a good one,

Motta80

This one's from M is for Monkey, who calls out all the Craig naysayers. He realy liked the film, despite its imperfections.

Caught this over the weekend in London, although my thoughts echo your other reviewer, so I won't be offended if you don't use this!

Spoiler free review here.

First things first - hands up those who thought Daniel Craig would be a terrible Bond? Come on, yes, all of you. Especially those who signed petitions online. Ok, now, if you've changed your mind having seen a few trailers, put your hand down. Ok, only a few of you. Well, if by the end of
this movie you haven't changed your mind, then clearly you won't be convinced by me. But, in my opinion, Craig is a) perfect for this role and b) up there with Connery. He's not as smooth as Brosnan, but he's hard as fuck. He's gritty, he's raw, he screws up, but mostly he's bloody good at this. He's physical, cold, and methodical. He's very precise, there's no spraying of machine guns - when he shoots, he doesn't empty his clip, he chooses what to fire at and for the most part hits the target.

A lot of the comparisons will stem from the fact that the script's a lot punchier than the previous movies. There aren't any kiss-off lines, not many quips, and most of the cheesy romance lines are met with sniggers and self-deprecation. He's also damned funny. He also manages to get away with I think the first utterances in Bond history of "balls" and "bitch", though not together. He's rugged, yet suave in a couple of scenes, looks amazing in a tux, yet cragged and beaten up. He's a much more vulnerable Bond, wearing scars and hospital attire, yet confident and bruising in his fighting and loving.

Support from Bond girls is always tricky - for every Xenia Onatopp or Pussy Galore, exuding sexiness and murderous intent equally, there's a Christmas Jones, a Natalya, or a Madonna threatening to ruin the film. There are three Bond girls here - Caterina Murino, European and poured into a sexy dress; Ivana Milicevic, blonde and utterly useless except as wallcandy (just background - I don't think she even gets a line); and Miss Eva Green. Eva's confident and sexy, veering a little too assured and smug, but banters well with Bond, not falling for his charms too easily. They're not a classic bunch, but with enough wit in the script to give them more than just window dressing status - well, except Milicevic anyway.

Mads Mikkelson plays a good enough bad guy. No big speeches or dastardly plans, just a man who needs to get something. He's got a certain amount of fear to him as well as a huge amount of desperation, which I liked, but it's a little unnecessary to have his character flaws so physically portrayed. But it's nice to see a spy movie without the superhumans.

Plot wise, I loved the fact that it's not a world-domination film. It's a sensible scheme (although lack of back-up plans seems a little short-sighted.) and thus the plot's not overly convoluted. It does swerve a bit, and I found the casino bits to be less of a thrill than they could have been perhaps, but overall it's a good plot, with a few exciting chase set
pieces thrown in but not overly big and bombastic. The fights are gritty and mostly punching, no smooth moves or handy gadgets to save the day. The chases are excellent, very frantic and take different turns which keeps you charged the whole way through. The script is sharp, witty and at times self-deprecating. Some of the jokes at the expense of your expectations might alienate some fans as being too on the nose, but for the most part it's much drier and more palatable than recent work, and I hope they manage to rein that in more in follow-ups.

It was a little too slick at times, some of the romance I felt was forced and devolved a little from its earlier scenes, and the casino bits went on too long. The ending could have been crisper and the theme tune whilst I didn't like it on the internet and found it better in the titles, it still wasn't a memorable song.

As a reboot I thought it was great - it adds a huge amount of depth to the franchise, just by reducing the character to his essentials. As a starting point for a new, inexperienced Bond I thought it was good - but I hope he doesn't become too confident too quickly. As a continuation of a franchise our interpretation is that Bond's a persona that different people step into, and that's how Dench is still M, and this I feel is a step in the right direction.

As a film I thought it was great entertainment - it's got an edge to it that a lot of spy movies don't have, but it's not a ridiculous blockbuster either, which I found refreshing. As a Bond film I thought it was up with GoldenEye and most of the Connery films. Would I recommend it? Hell yes. To those people sick of CGI windsurfing and fans of the Bourne films I thought that the producers of Bond have learnt a lot. It's not perfect and certainly won't please everyone, but we thought it was a cracking film, fun, exciting, and above all entertaining without being stupid. Go see! Demographic? I'm male, 27 and a huge movie snob. I'd recommend it to most people between 14 and 50, male and female, and Bond fans who were despairing after the last few turkeys.

And I definitely felt Bond was back - Craig wasn't the obvious choice, but after seeing him for almost two and a half hours, I totally forgot it was the same man from Road to Perdition and Enduring Love, and believed I was watching James Bond. He's not like his predecessors, but my faith in the franchise has been restored. Now, if only I could get people to make a public apology on those websites..

If it's of any use, protect my identity by using the humorous referential pseudonym of M is for Monkey.

Bond hits November 17.